DUKE  UNIVERSITY  LIBRARY 
DURHAM,  N.  C. 


C/ 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 
in  2017  with  funding  from 
Duke  University  Libraries 


https://archive.org/details/prohibition01whee 


PROHIBITION: 


THE  PRINCIPLE,  THE  POLICY  AND  THE  PARTY. 

A DISPASSIONATE  STUDY  OP  THE  ARGUMENTS  FOR  AND  AGAINSP 
PROHIBITORY  LAW,  AND  THE  REASOlSfS  GOVERNING 
THE  POLITICAL  ACTION  OP  ITS  ADVOCATES. 


By  E J.  wheeler. 


Unsettled  questions  have  no  mercy  on  the  peace  of  nations.” 

— Gaefield. 


NEW  YORK 

FUNK  & WAGNALLS  COMPANY 

I.AFAYETTE  PLACE 


/ 


Copyright,  r889 

Bg 

E.  J.  WHEEEBR 


Printed  in  the  United  States 


t6 

CONTENTS. 


Page. 


PART  I.  THE  PRINCIPLE.  .....  1 

1.  THE  LEGAL  PHASE  OP  THE  SUBJECT.  3 

2.  TWO  VIEWS  OP  THE  PROVINCE  OP 

GOVERNMENT 7 

f3.  JOHN  STUART  MILL  AND  HERBERT 

SPENCER 10* 

4.  THE  QUESTION  OP  PERSONAL  LIBERTY  21 

THE  SIN  PER  SE 27 

6.  THE  CONTROVERSY  OVER  BIBLE 

WINES 30 

7.  THE  PHYSIOLOGICAL  EPFECTS  OP 

ALCOHOL. 39 

8.  DRINK  AND  CRIME.  . - ...  49 

9.  DRINK  AND  DEATH 57  / 


10.  THE  ECONOMICAL  EVILS  OP  DRINK  . 67t/ 

11.  POLITICAL  EVILS  DDE  TO  THE  SALOON  76 


12.  THE  PLEASURE  OP  DRINK.  ...  88 

13,  RECAPITULATION 92 

PART  II.  THE  POLICY 94 

1.  THE  INQUIRY  INSTITUTED  BY  THE 

CANADIAN  PARLIAMENT.  ...  97 

2.  THE  RESULT  IN  MAINE 108 

3.  THE  RESULT  IN  VERMONT 121 

4.  THE  RESULT  IN  KANSAS 124 


3 4-^  I Lj. 


CONTENTS. 


5.  THE  RESULT  IN  IOWA 129 

6.  THE  RESULT  IN  RHODE  ISLAND.  . 133 

7.  THE  ATTITUDE  OP  THE  LIQUOR 

DEALERS 135 

8.  LEGAL  AND  MORAL  RESULTS  OF 

PROHIBITION 138 

9.  THE  DEMAND  FOR  NATIONAL  PROHI- 

BITION  148 

PART  III.  THE  PARTY 157 

1.  CAN  THE  REFORM  BE  ACCOMPLISHED 

THROUGH  EITHER  OLD  PARTY?  . .163 

2.  THE  BAL  VNCE  OF  POWER  PLAN.  . 171 

3.  THE  NON-PARTISAN  PLAN  OF  UNION  . 175 

4.  THE  OBJECTIONS  TO  A NEW  PARTY  . 183 


5.  IS  PUBLIC  SENTIMENT  READY?  . . 190 

6.  OTHER  ISSUES  OF  THE  DAT  . . . 195 

APPENDIX 207 


PART  I.  THE  PRINCIPLE. 

tS  PROHIBITION  IN  ACCORD  WITH  WISE  PRIN- 
CIPLES OP  STATESMANSHIP  ? 


V7 

“ No  legislation  founded  on  unsound  principles  can  accomplish  a 
permanent  good,  whatever  he  the  present  seeming'.”— Preface  to 
Bishop’s  Statutory  Crimes. 


“ Men  are  four,”  says  an  Arabic  proverb : 

“He  who  knows  not,  and  knows  not  he  knows 
not.  He  is  a fool ; shun  him. 

“ He  who  knows  not,  and  knows  he  knows  not. 
He  is  simple ; teach  him. 

“ He  who  knows,  and  knows  not  he  knows.  He] 
is  asleep  ; wake  him. 

' “ He  who  knows,  and  knows  that  he  knowsi 

He  is  wise  ; follow  him.” 

The  only  difficulty  with  this,  as  with  so  many 
other  wise  deliverances,  lies  in  its  application. 
For  it  frequently  happens  that  the  man  who  knows 
not  that  he  knows  not,  and  the  man  who  knows 
that  he  knows,  manifest  the  same  characteristics, 
being  equally  positive  and  equally  sincere.  Ii 
emphasis  in  assertion  is  to  be  sole  guide  in  deciding 
the  righteousness  of  a cause,  we  shall  be  forced 
generally  to  conclude  that  each,  side  is  right. 
Certainly  this  would  be  the  case  in  the  discus- 


2 


THE  PRINCIPLE. 


sion  of  Prohibition,  which  has  been  characterized 
on  both  sides  with  much  warmth  of  feeling  and  a 
consequent  warmth  of  utterance.  It  has  been 
made  a theme  of  heated  controversy  in  the  realm 
of  science,  of  philosoph}^  and  of  religion.  It  is  a 
question  that  touches  on  one  side  vested  interests 
i>^  0^  vast  proportions,  an~d7~ou  another,  social  habits 
that  have  become  rooted  in  ciisfoin  and  appetite. 

/Add  to  these  causes  of  contention,  those~\vTiit-h 
have  arisen  of  late  years  in  the  realm  of  politics, 
and  it  is  not,  perhaps,  to  be  wondered  at  that  the 
subject  is  rarely  approached  in  the  calm  spirit  of 
philosophic  inquiry.  What  has  been  written  or 
spoken  has,  almost  invariably,  taken  the  form  of  a 
plea  by  an  advocate  or  an  assault  by  an  adversary. 
There  is,  of  course,  in  all  public  movements,  an 
important  plape  for  impassioned  appeaLand  im.' 
vective.^jXight  without  heat  is  sterile  in^the 
as  in  the  physical  w(iiiI(i.-y"But  there  is  an 
equanyTnipoi’taut  place  for  the  calm  and  impartial 
consideration  of  facts  and  principles. 

Prohibition  is  something  more  than  a sentiment. 
It  is  a defiiate  legislative  enactment  proposed  as  a 
remedy  for  pertain  ills.  It  is  not  enough  to  prove 
that  those  ills  exist.  That  the}^  do  exist,  proves 
the  need  of  some  remedy,  and  their  magnitude 
proves  the  urgency  of  that  need ; but  it  can  not 
proveAhat  the  remedy  proposed  is  the  pi^ero^n^ 
nor~~w^t  is^^pre^‘prqper'^^mode~'of~Tt^a~f^^ 

Before  Prohibition  cmr  be  accep^d  as  a remedy 


THK  LEGAL  LHASE  OF  THE  SUBJECT. 


3 


for  the  drink-eyil,  three  questions  must  be  asked_ 
and  answered,  namely : 

1.  Is  it  in  accord  with  wise  principles  of  states- 
manship ? 

2.  Does  it.  in  actual  operation,  giye  reasonable 
assurance  of.  being  an  efGcient  and  practicable 

policy  ? 

3.  Can  it  be  attained,  and  at  what  sacri^ies? 

To  these  three  questions  Parts  I,  II,  and  III 

of  this  work  are  respectiyely  directed. 

1.  The  Lieg-al  Phase  of  the  Subject. 

In  considering  the  goyernraental  principles  in- 
yolyed  in  prohibitory  law,  the  legal  and  constitu- 
tional rights  of  goyernment  are  those  which 
laturally  call  for  first  consideration.  What  rightsV 
State  possesses,  and  what  rights  it  is  wise  to  1 
exercise,  are,  howeyer,  entirely  distinct  questions./ 

In  other  words,  the  legal  right  and  the  moral  righf 
^re  by  no  means  the  same.  The  Goyernment  hasO'''^**^ 
I for  instance,  at  all  times,  a legal  right  to  declarel 
1 war,  but  not  the  moral  right  to  do  so,  except  for 
sufficient  cause. 

The  legal  right  (without  reference  now  to  the 
moral  right)  of  the  goyernment  oyer  all  forms  of 
trade  and  traffic  is  one  that  has  been  firmly  estab- 
lished for  generations.  It  can,  under  law,  regulat^ 
Isuppress,  or  destroy  any  form  of  traffic  which  it 
considers  inimical  to  the  well-being  of  the  State. ^ 

‘^It  is  the  undoubted  and  reseryed  power  of  eyer 
“State  here,”  said  the  United  States  Supreme 


' e 


4 


THE  LEGAL  PHASE  OF  THE  SUBJECT. 


Court,”  as  a political  body,  to  decide  * * * what 
“ kind  of  propert}^  and  business  it  will  tolerate  and 
“ pi'otect.”  Trade  and  traffic  are,  indeed,  the 
outgrowth  of  organized  society.  The  appetite  foi 
meat  is  one  present  to  the  savage;  but  the  traffic 
in  meat-stuffs,  the  barter  and  sale,  is  possible  only 
under  social  organization  of  some  sort,  and  social 
organization  is  possible  only  under  some  form  of 
law.  Since  then,  all  traffic  is,  in  a sense,  the 
creature  of  law,  the  power  of  law  to  impose  upon 
it  whatever  conditions  may  be  necessary,  has  been 
one  recognized  in  every  form  of  government.  It 
is  doubtful  if  any  State  could  exist  that  did  not 
retain  this  power.  As  a matter  of  fact,  a very 
large  proportion  of  the  acts  of  legislation  in  all 
governments,  are  but  exercises  of  this  power  over 
the  commercial  transactions  among  its  peop.t. 

It  is  of  first  importance  to  bear  in  mind  that 
Prohibition  deals  with  the  traffic  in  liquor — with 
the  acts  of  barter  and  sale,  not  the  act  of  drink- 
ing. Practically,  this  distinction  may  amount  to 
little  ; but  legally  it  is  a distinction  of  vital  im- 
portance. The  law  that  forbids  a man  to  sell  a 
certain  commodity  and  the  law  that  forbids  bin. 

. to  use  it,  may  be  very  wide  apart  in  the  princq^les 
of  jurisprudence  involved,  for  the  act  of  selling  is 
an  act  of  public  consequence,  while  the  act  of 
using  may  or  may  not  be.  The  act  of  drinking^ 
glass  of  liquor,  for  instance,  is  one  that  may  affect 
no  one  but  the  man  himself  ^ who  drinks ; but 
offering  for  sale  to  the  public  the  same  glass  of 


THE  LEGAL  PHASE  OP  THE  SUBJECT. 


5 


liquot  is  an  act  that  is  of  a public  character  and 
affecU  the  public  interest. 

For  four  hundred  years,  the  laws  of  England 
have  recognized  in  the  liquor  traffic  a proper  sub- 
ject for  legislative  action.  As  early  as  1603  an 
act  forbidding  a publican,  under  the  penalty  of 
ten  poands,  to  allow  men  to  stay  and  tipple  in  his 
house,  was  passed,  and  since  then  a long  series  of 
nearly  live  hundred  regulative  aets  have  gone  on 
the  records  of  English  jurisprudence. 

Similarly,  in  the  United  States  the  traffic  has 
from  the  first  been  recognized  as  a fit  subject  for 
legislative  action.  In  the  Continental  Congress, 
February  27,  1774,  a resolution  was  passed  as  fol- 
lows : 

“ Resolved^  That  it  be  recommended  to  the  sev- 
eral legislatures  of  the  United  States  imme- 
diately to  pass  laws  the  most  effeetual  for  put- 
ting an  immediate  stop  to  the  pernicious  practice 
of  distilling  grain,  by  which  the  most  extensive 
evils  are  likely  to  be  derived  if  not  quickly 
prevented.” 

Here,  then,  in  the  birthplace  of  the  American 
Republic,  as  well  as  in  the  wide  variet}^  of  statute 
and  constitutional  laws,  regulative,  restrictive,  or 
prohibitive,  enacted  in  every  State  of  the  nation 
since,  the  barter  and  sale  of  liquor  has  been  rec- 
ognized as  a public  affair,  subject  to  public  con- 
trol. 

Prohibition,  then,  whether  or. not  it  is  a wise 
exercise  of  power,  would  not  inject  any  new  and 


6 TEE  LEGAL  PHASE  OF  THE  SUBJECT. 

strange  principles  into  our  system  of  jurisprudence. 
In  its  legal  aspect,  it  is  an  evolution,  not  a revolu- 
tion. Every  license  law  enacted  is  an  assertion  of 
the  Government’s  right  to  determine  the  condi- 
tions on  which  the  traffic  shall  exist.  “ I admit  as 
inevitable,”  said  Justice  McKean,  of  the  United 
States  Supreme  Court,  “ that  if  the  State  has 
“power  to  restrain  by  license,  to  any  extent,  she 
“has  the  discretionary  power  to  judge  of  the 
“limit,  and  may  go  to  the  limit  of  prohibiting  it 
“ altogether.”* 

In  the  city  of  New  York,  for  illustration,  the 
Board  of  Excise  Commissioners,  in  1887,  deter- 
mined that  the  number  of  licenses  for  the  sale  of 
liquor  should  not  be  increased.  (Report,  Dec.  31, 
1887,  p.  8.)  The  number  issued  at  that  time  was 
8,817,  or  one  for  about  every  160  of  the  popula- 
tion. In  effect,  therefore,  by  this  determination, 
one  hundred  and  fifty-nine  out  of  one  hundred 
and  sixty  persons  were  prohibited  from  selling 
liquors.  Had  any  one  of  these  one  hundred  and 
fifty-nine  persons  attempted  to  sell,  he  rendered 
himself  subject  to  fine  or  imprisonment.  By  what 
principle  of  jurisprudence  could  it  be  maintained 
that  the  State  has  the  legal  right  to  prohibit  one 
hundred  and  fiftj'-nine  persons,  but  has  not  the 
same  right  to  prohibit  the  one  hundred  and 
sixtieth  person? 

Indeed,  the  question  of  law  is  no  longer  open 


* License  cases,  5 Howard,  504,  For  similar  utterances  see  also 
Cooley’s  Constitutional  Limitations,  o also  Bishop's  .Statutorr 

Crimes,  ;■  995. 


TWO  VIEWS  OF  THE  PROVINCE  OF  GOVERNMENT.  7 


for  discussion.  The  Supreme  Court  of  the  United 
States  has  spoken  at  least  twice  on  this  question 
in  a way  that  can  not  be  mistaken.  On  March  6, 
1847,  the  Court  affirmed  the  full  power  of  the 
State  to  regulate,  restrain,  or  prohibit  the  traffic 
altogether,  (License  cases,  5 How.  504).  This 
decision  was  concurred  in  by  every  member  of  the 
court,  in  spite  of  the  fact  that  two  of  the  most 
illustrious  of  American  jurists — Daniel  Webster 
and  Rufus  Choate — pleaded  the  case  of  the  liquor 
dealers. 

Another  decision,  equally  emphatic,  and  on  this 
point  equally  unanimous,  was  given  by  the 
Supreme  Court  December  5,  1887.  (For  the  text 
of  this  decision,  see  Appendix,  note  A).  Those 
who  deem  of  importance  the  political  character  of 
the  Court,  in  weighing  Its  decisions,  should  not 
fail  to  note  that  in  1847  a majority  of  the  justices 
were  Democrats,  and  in  1887,  a majority  were 
Republicans.  At  two  different  periods,  therefore, 
forty  years  apart,  the  highest  Court  of  the  land  has 
unanimously  affirmed  the  right  of  a State,  under 
the  Federal  Constitution,  to  enact  prohibitory 
law.  The  legal  right  in  the  case,  then,  is  a 
settled  one. 

2.  Two  Views  of  the  Province  of  Government. 

I But  the  constitutionality  of  a law  does  not 
'prove  the  wisdom  of  it.  The  moral  right  of  a 
Government  to  enact  certain  laws  is  one  beyond 
and  above  the  question  of  mere  legal  right. 
Whether  Prohibition  is  a proper  exercise  of  the 


8 TWO  VIEWS  OF  THE  PROVINCE  OF  GOVERNMENT. 


functions  of  Government,  is  not  a question  to  ba 
decided  by  the  Courts,  whose  duty  is  to  interpret 
law  as  it  is,  rather  than  to  decide  what  it  should 
be. 

From  the  days  of  Solon,  the  proper  functions 
of  Government  have  furnished  to  philosophers  a 
fascinating  theme  for  study  and  discussion.  The 
old  maxim,  “ The  king  can  do  no  wrong,”  simpli- 
fied the  discussion  wherever  it  was  accepted,  by 
making  the  will  of  the  one  governing  the  only 
limitation  in  the  functions  of  government.  But 
“ the  divine  right  of  kings  ” has  given  way  to  the 
divine  right  of  majorities,  and  the  old  maxim  has 
been  replaced  with  one  that  it  is  perhaps  equally 
necessary  to  take  cum  grano  salis,  namely  : “ The 
voice  of  the  people  is  the  voice  of  God.” 

In  undertaking  to  prescribe  the  limits  for  the 
government  of  majorities,  the  social  philosophers 
of  the  nineteenth  century  have  divided,  broadly 
speaking,  into  two  divergent  schools.  By  one 
school,  it  is  held  that  with  the  advance  of  civiliza- 
tion and  the  moral  progress  of  the  individual,  the 
need  for  civil  law  grows  less  and  less,  and 
restraints  of  government  should  become  fewer 
and  fewer.  Their  view  is  popularly  expressed  in 
the  saying : “ The  best  government  is  the  one 

“ that  governs  least.” 

By  the  other  school,  it  is  held  that  tlie  advance 
of  civilization,  the  increasing  density  of  popula- 
tion, and  the  ever-multipljdng  complexity  of 
social  and  industrial  forces,  render  necessary  more 


TWO  VIEWS  OF  THE  PROVINCE  OF  GOVERNMENT.  9 


and  more  legislation,  defining  more  and  more 
minutely  the  metes  and  bounds  of  individual  lib- 
erty and  the  conditions  of  industrial  activity. 

With  the  advanced  leaders  of  the  former  school 
the  function  of  government  is  held  to  consist  sim- 
ply in  “the  administration  of  justice.”  Further 
than  this  it  should  not  go,  and  cannot  go  without 
usurping  rights.  It  should  prevent  or  punish  acts 
of  violence  and  fraud — whatever  is  an  infringe- 
ment by  one  upon  the  equal  rights  of  another. 
But  laws  fostering  industry,  establishing  public 
schools,  m'aintaining  charitable  institutions,  guard- 
ing the  public  health,  making  public  improve- 
ments and  performing  public  services  such  as  the 
carrying  of  mails, — all  such  laws  are  considered  as 
beyond  the  proper  domain  of  Government.  Let 
all  these  affairs  be  left  to  individual  effort,  is  the 
theory,  and  let  the  law  attend  simply  to  defending 
each  man  in  his  rights  and  executing  justice. 

The  tendency  of  the  other  school  is  in  the  con- 
trary direction.  Instead  of  abolishing  the  public 
school  system,  they  would  add  to  it  compulsory 
education.  Instead  of  destroying  the  public  postal 
service,  they  would  re-enforce  it  with  a postal 
telegraph  system.  Instead  of  calling  hands  off  in 
ase  of  industry,  they  would  lay  heavier  hands  on 
.1  view  of  the  development  of  what  they  term 
“ monopolies  ” and  “ trusts.”  Instead  of  lessening 
the  Governmental  regulation  of  railroads,  they 
advocate  the  ultimate  ownership  by  the  Govern- 
ment of  all  lines  of  transportation. 


10  JOHN  STUART  MILL  AND  HERBERT  SPENCER. 


Along  these  two  divergent  lines  are  arranged  in 
different  gradations  the  social  philosophers  of  our 
da3L  At  the  extreme  of  one  is  the  Anarchist  crj^- 
ing  for  no  law  and  no  Government ; at  the  extreme 
of  the  other  is  the  Communist,  crying  for  the 
ownership  of  all  things  by  the  Government. 

It  can  be  readily  surmised  from  which  direction 
come  the  objections  to  Prohibition.  There  is 
nothing  in  the  theory  of  Prohibition  that  conflicts 
with  the  tenets  of  the  latter  school.  With  this 
school  it  is  chiefly  a question  of  expediency.  Butt 
' the  adherents  of  the  former  school  challenge  thci 
• propriety  as  well  as  the  practicability  of  such  la\?*.i 
\lt  is  with  them  not  simply  a question  of  fact  or 
[possibility,  but  a question  of  principle. 

' It  is  the  intention,  in  these  pages,  to  keep  the 
subject  disentangled,  as  far  as  possible,  from  all 
questions  not  necessarily  involved  in  it.  Without 
proceeding,  then,  to  any  further  comparison 
between  the  claims  of  these  diverging  schools,  it 
is  desired  to  look  more  closely  into  the  nature  of 
the  objections  brought  by  the  former  school  against 
the  principle  of  prohibitory  law — to  see,  in  fact, 
whether  there  is  any  real  and  necessarj'  conflict  of 
principles. 

3.  John  Stuart  Mill  and  Herbert  Spencer. 

The  two  most  popular  and  widely  read  defend- 
ers of  the  theory  that  the  “ best  government  is  the 
one  that  governs  least,”  are  Herbert  Spencer  and 
John  Stuart  Mill. 


JOHN  STUART  MILL  AND  HERBERT  SPENCER.  11 


In  his  “Essay  on  Liberty,”  Mill  defines  at 
length  what  he  conceives  to  be  the  proper  func- 
tions of  Government  and  the  principle  that  should 
govern  all  legislation.  He  sums  up  his  discussion 
of  the  question  as  follows  : 

“ That  principle  is,  that  the  sole  end  for  which 
mankind  are  warranted,  individually  or  collec- 
tively, in  interfering  with  the  liberty  of  action 
of  any  of  their  number,  is  self-protection.  That 
the  only  purpose  for  which  power  can  be  right- 
fully exercised  over  any  member  of  a civilized 
community,  against  his  will,  is  to  prevent  harm 
to  others.  He  cannot  rightfully  be  compelled 
to  do  or  forbear,  because  better  for  him  to  do 
so,  because  it  will  make  him  happier,  because, 
in  the  opinion  of  others,  to  do  so  would  be 
wise  or  even  right.  These  are  good  reasons  for 
remonstrating  with  him,  or  persuading  him,  or 
entreating  him,  but  not  for  compelling  him  or 
visiting  him  with  any  evil  in  case  he  do  other- 
wise. To  justify  that,  the  conduct  from  which 
it  is  desired  to  deter  him  must  be  calculated  to 
produce  evil  to  some  one  else.” — (^Introduction  to 
Esmy  on  Liberty,  p.  23.) 

The  same  writer  again  puts  into  still  more 
concise  form  what  he  considers  to  be  fundamental 
maxims  of  government.  He  says  : 

“ The  maxims  are,  first,  that  the  individual  is  not 
accountable  to  society  for  his  actions,  in  so  far 
as  these  concern  the  interests  of  no  person 
but  himself.  Advice,  instruction,  persuasion 


12  JOHN  STUAET  MILL  AND  HEEBEET  SPENCER. 


and  avoidance  by  other  people,  if  thought 
necessary  by  them  for  their  own  good,  are  the 
only  measures  by  which  society  can  justifiably 
express  its  dislike  or  disapprobation  of  his  con- 
duct. 

“ Secondly,  that  for  such  actions  as  are  prejudicial 
to  the  interests  of  others,  the  individual  is  ac- 
countable, and  may  be  subjected  to  either  social 
or  legal  punishments,  if  society  is  of  opinion 
that  the  one  or  the  other  is  requisite  for  its  pro- 
tection.”— (^Essay  on  Liherty^f.  182.) 

Almost  identical  with  these  views  are  those  set 
forth  by  Herbert  Spencer.  In  Social  Statics,  he 
thus  defines  the  functions  of  the  State  : 

“ To  enforce  the  fundamental  law  [of  equal  free 
dom] — to  take  care  that  every  man  has  free- 
dom to  do  all  that  he  wills,  provided  that  he 
infringes  not  the  equal  freedom  of  any  other 
man — this  is  the  special  purpose  for  which  the 
civil  power  exists.” — (^Social  Statics, p.  341.) 
Over  and  over  he  reiterates  this  as  the  central 
thought  of  his  system.  “ The  duty  of  the  State  is 
“ — to  protect — to  enforce  the  law  of  equal  free- 
“dom,  to  maintain  men’s  rights,  or,  as  we  com- 
“ monly  express  it — to  administer  justice.” — 
{Social  Statics,  p.  280.) 

Further  than  this,  he  denies  that  the  State  has 
any  right  to  go,  but  in  nothing  are  both  Mill  and 
Spencer  more  emphatic  than  in  asserting  the 
duty  of  the  State  to  this  extent.  Failure  here  on 
the  part  of  the  State,  failure  to  furnish  this  needed 


JOHN  STUAET  MILL  AND  HERBERT  SPENCER.  13 


protection,  is,  they  conceive,  failure  in  the  very 
end  and  purpose  of  Government.  And  in  fact, 
whatever  difference  of  opinion  there  maybe  among 
sociologists  as  to  whether  the  sphere  of  Govern- 
ment extends  beyond  this  limit,  there  is  no 
difference  whatever — if  Anarchism  be  not  con- 
sidered— on  the  right  and  duty  of  Government 
within  this  limit. 

In  applying  these  principles.  Mill,  considering 
the  rights  which  the  State  has  over  trade,  says : 
“Again,  trade  is  a social  act.  Whoever  under- 
takes to  sell  any  description  of  goods  to  the 
public,  does  what  affects  the  interest  of  other 
persons,  and  of  society  in  general;  and  thus  his 
conduct,  in  principle,  comes  within  the  jurisdic- 
tion of  society.” — (^JEsnay  on  Liberty,  jp.  183.) 
This  extract,  standing  by  itself,  would  seem  to 
yield  to  the  State  at  once  the  right  of  Prohibition. 
But  elsewhere  Mill  shows  that  he  has  no  intention 
of  allowing  such  an  application.  Coming  directly, 
in  the  course  of  his  discussion,  to  the  subject  of 
Prohibition,  he  says : 

“ On  the  other  hand,  there  are  questions  relating 
to  the  interference  with  trade  which  are  essen- 
tially questions  of  liberty ; such  as  the  Maine  law, 
already  touched  upon ; the  prohibition  of  the 
importation  of  opium  into  China ; the  restric- 
tion of  the  sale  of  poisons ; all  cases,  in  short, 
where  the  object  of  the  interference  is  to  make 
it  impossible  or  difficult  to  obtain  a particular 
commodity.  These  interferences  are  objection- 


14  JOHN  STUART  MILL  AND  HERBERT  SPENCER. 


able,  not  as  infringements  on  the  liberty  of  the 
producer  or  seller,  but  on  that  of  the  buyer.” — 
(^Essay  on  Liberty^  p.  185.) 

The  idea  here  seems  to  be  that  since  the  sale  of 
liquor,  opium,  and  poisons,  is  voluntary  on  the 
part  of  both  buyer  and  seller,  it  is  not,  in  itself,  a 
violation  of  any  one’s  rights,  and  hence  the  State 
is  not  justified  in  interfering.  The  logic  of  this 
reasoning  tells  with  equal  force,  it  is  evident, 
against  restrictive  laws  as  well.  Mill  does  not 
hesitate  to  admit  this.  He  says : 

“To  tax  stimulants  for  the  sole  purpose  of  making 
them  more  difficult  to  be  obtained,  is  a measure 
differing  only  in  degree  from  their  entire  pro- 
hibition ; and  would  be  justified  only  if  that 
were  justifiable.” — (p.  194.) 

Whoever  follows  Mr.  Mill,  therefore,  to  the  end 
of  his  logic,  must,  in  consistency,  oppose  all  re- 
strictive laws  and  favor  an  unrestricted  traffic  in 
liquor.  Mill  explains  himself  farther : 

“ * * * * It  is  to  this  class  surely  [of  individual 
acts  as  distinguished  from  social  acts]  that  the 
act  of  drinking  fermented  liquors  belongs.  Sell- 
ing fermented  liquors,  however,  is  trading,  and 
trading  is  a social  act.  But  the  infringement 
complained  of  is  not  on  the  liberty  of  the  seller, 
but  on  that  of  the  buyer  and  consumer  ; hence 
the  State  might  just  as  well  forbid  him  to  drink 
wine,  as  purposely  make  it  impossible.” — (p. 
172.)  Finally,  in  reply  to  a letter  written  by  the 
Secretary  of  the  United  Kingdom  Temperance 


JOHN  STUART  MILL  AND  HERBERT  SPENCER.  15 


Alliance,  in  which  it  was  argued  that  the  drink 
traffic  invaded  his  “ social  rights  ” by  destroying 
his  sense  of  security,  by  creating  disorder,  by  in- 
creasing taxes,  by  hindering  his  free  moral  and 
intellectual  development,  and  by  weakening 
society,  Mill  says  : 

“ A theory  of  social  rights  the  like  of  which 
probably  never  before  found  its  way  into 
distinct  language,  being  nothing  short  of  this, 
that  it  is  the  absolute  social  right  of  every 
individual  that  every  other  individual  shall  act 
in  every  respect  exactly  as  he  ought ; that  who- 
ever fails  thereof  in  the  smallest  particular, 
violates  my  social  right,  and  entitles  me  to 
demand  from  the  legislature  the  removal  of  the 
grievance.” 

This,  then,  seems  to  be,  in  brief,  the  view  of 
Mill : That  Government  has  no  right  to  interfere 
with  an  individual’s  acts,  until  they  infringe  on 
some  other  individual’s  rights ; that  the  drinking 
of  liquor  does  not,  of  itself,  infringe  on  another’s 
rights,  and  that  the  sale  of  liquor,  being  ent^ely 
voluntary  on  the  part  of  both  buyer  and 
seller,  Government  has  no  right  to  interfere  at  the 
demand  of  some  third  person.  In  other  words,  if 
A sells  liquor  to  B,  the  rights  of  C and  D are  not 
disturbed  by  the  act  of  sale.  It  is  true  B may  be- 
come drunk  and  then  by  an  act  of  violence  disturb 
those  rights  ; but  until  he  reaches  that  point,  th^ 
law  can  not  step  in.  It  is  the  act  of  violence,  buf^ 
not  the  sale  nor  yet  the  drinking  of  the  liquor,  that 


16  JOHN  STUART  MILL  AND  HERBERT  SPENCER. 


infringed  the  rights  of  C and  D.  The  law  can 
forbid  and  punish  the  violence,  but  as  there  is  no 
necessary  connection  between  the  sale  of  liquor 
and  the  violence,  the  law  can  not  justifiably  punish 
or  forbid  the  sale. 

So  far  the  logic  seems  to  be  clear,  and  the 
conclusion  correct,  if  Mill’s  limitations  for  Gov- 
ernment be  accepted.  Considering  each  specific- 
act  of  purchase  and  sale  by  itself,  there  seems  to 
be  in  it  no  infringement  on  another’s  rights.  But 
is  there  not  something  beside  these  specific  acts, 
something  antecedent  to  them  ? Before  a sale  is 
made,  must  there  not  have  been,  logically  at  least, 
two  prior  conditions  established — namely,  first,  the 
facilities  for  trade,  and,  second,  the  permission  (and 
protection)  of  organized  society  (Government)  to 
conduct  the  proposed  trade  ? The  first  of  these 
conditions  is  supplied  by  the  man  himself,  but 
the  second  is  supplied,  either  tactily  or  explicith', 
by  Government.  If,  as  Mill  says,  “ trade  is  a 
social  act,”  and  “ comes  within  the  jurisdiction  of 
society,”  is  not  the  consent  of  society  a logical 
prerequisite  to  the  establishment  of  this  trade  ? 
Society,  indeed,  does  more  than  permit ; it  protects 
as  well,  by  its  courts  and  police,  the  trade  thus 
established. 

It  becomes  necessary  then  to  go  back  beyond 
those  specific  acts  of  sale,  which  may  not  be,  in 
themselves,  and  may  not  always  involve,  even  in 
their  consequences,  any  violation  of  rights,  and  to 
consider  that  first  step  necessary  to  be  taken, 


JOHN  STHAET  MILL  AND  HERBERT  SPENCER.  IT 

namely,  the  consent  of  Government  either  implied 
or  written. 

If  we  do  this,  we  shall  find  the  epitomized  argu- 
ment now  running  about  as  follows  : 

A desires  to  sell  liquor  to  B and  others.  But 
before  doing  so,  since  “ trade  is  a social  act  ” and 
“ within  the  jurisdiction  of  society,”  it  is  necessary 
for  him  to  have  the  consent  of  society  and  the 
protection  it  alone  can  give.  Now,  since  it  is 
agreed  on  all  hands  that  the  first  and  all-important 
duty  of  Government  is  “ to  protect— to  enforce  the 
law  of  equal  freedom,  to  maintain  men’s  rights,” 
the  first  question  that  Government  is  bound  to  ask, 
before  granting  the  protection  desired,  is.  Will  the 
establishment  of  this  traffic  interfere  with  the  per- 
formance of  my  duty  to  protect  the  rights  of  my 
citizens  ? 

The  question  then  is  no  longer  whether  the  spe- 
cific act  of  selling  or  drinking  interferes  with  the 
rights  of  others ; but  whether  the  traffic  itself,  as 
a whole,  interferes  with  those  rights,  and  with  the 
performance  of  the  Government’s  duty  to  protect 
them. 

It  may  be  objected  here  that  if  the  specific  acts 
of  sale  do  not  interfere  with  those  rights  which 
society  is  bound  to  protect,  then  the  traffic  as  a 
whole  does  not  interfere,  since  it  is  nothing  but 
the  aggregation  of  such  sales.  This,  however,  is 
a mistake.  The  traffic  consists  in  much  more  than 
that,  for  it  means  not  only  the  supplying,  but  the 
stimulating  of  a demand  for  liquor.  It  not  oulj 
2 


18  JOHN  STUAHT  MILL  AND  HERBERT  SPENCER. 


gratifies,  but  it  incites  the  appetite.  It  not  only 
does  this  in  the  ordinary  modes  of  business,  such 
as  advertising  and  adding  attractions  of  many 
sorts ; but  the  very  existence  of  the  place  of  drink- 
ing is,  of  necessity,  more  or  less  of  an  incitement, 
if  it  be  admitted  that  selling  liquor  to  B is  not 
violating  the  rights  of  C and  D,  can  it  be  further 
said  that  inciting  B to  drink  is  not  a violation  of 
the  rights  of  C and  D ? 

Elsewhere  Mill  recognizes  this  feature  of  the 
business  as  an  important  one.  He  says  ; 

“ The  interest,  however,  of  these  [liquor]  dealers 
in  promoting  intemperance  is  a real  evil  and 
justifies  the  State  in  imposing  restrictions  and 
requiring  guarantees  which  but  for  that  justifi- 
cation would  be  infringements  of  legitimate 
liberty.” 

What  guarantees  ? That  they  will  not  promote 
intemperance  ? Suppose  they  can  not  give  any 
such  guarantee  (and  they  can  not) — what  then? 
The  fact  is  that  if  the  difference  between  restric- 
tion and  Prohibition  is,  as  Mill  has  said,'  simply  a 
difference  of  degree,  then  in  admitting  tluit 
restriction  is  rendered  justifiable  by  the  “ real 
“ evil  ” of  the  traffic,  he  has  admitted  that  Prohibi- 
tion, which  is  but  a more  severe  form  of  restric- 
tion, is  rendered  justifiable  if  the  less  severe  form 
proves  inadequate.  But  “ these  interferences  are 
“objectionable,”  he  says,  “ not  as  infringements  on 
“ the  liberty  of  the  producer  or  seller,  but  on 
“that  of  the  bu3-er.”  How?  Bj^  not  promoting 


'JOHN  STtJART  MILL  AND  HERBERT  SPENCER.  l9 

the  facilities  for  supplying  the  demands  of  his 
appetite.  But  is  the  State  bound  to  furnish  facil- 
ties  for  supplying  the  demand  for  drink  ? If  not, 
(and  Mill  would  be  the  first  to  maintain  that  it  is 
not)  is  the  State  bound  to  withhold  legislation 
because  it  will  interfere  with  that  supply  ? If  the 
duty  of  the  State  consists  simply  in  the  protection 
of  her  citizens  from  encroachments  on  their  rights, 
it  is  evident  that  a refusal  to  enact  laws  necessary 
for  the  proper  performance  of  that  duty,  solely 
because  they  will  affect  injuriously  the  gratifica- 
tion of  appetite,  is  far  from  consistent.  It  is  yield- 
ing, in  that  case,  to  a consideration  to  which, 
according  to  Mill’s  theory  of  government,  it  has 
no  right  even  to  listen. 

That  laws  for  the  restriction  of  the  liquor  traffic 
are  necessary  to  the  proper  performance  of  this 
duty  of  Government — a duty  on  which  all  sociol- 
ogists are  agreed — Mill  himself  admits.  The  same 
thing  is  implied  by  the  legislation  of  all  civilized 
Governments.  It  is  implied  by  the  legislation  of 
this  nation  from  almost  the  very  beginning. 

It  must  be  borne  in  mind  that  in  matters  alfect- 
ing  trade,  it  is  not,  with  civil  government,  merely 
a question  whether  to  interfere  or  to  abstain  from 
interference.  In  matters  of  personal  conduct,  tbe 
question  assumes  that  phase,  but  not  in  matters 
of  trade.  The  State  must  either  protect  or  pro- 
hibit here,  for  “ trade  is  a social  act.”  It  must 
refuse  permission  or  else  grant  it.  Silence  does 
not  mean  non-interference ; it  means  protection  in 


20  JOHN  STUART  MILL  AND  HERBERT  SPENCER. 


the  same  or  similar  measure  as  is  accorded  to  other 
traffic,  and  the  courts  act  on  that  principle 
when  questions  involving  tlie  property  rights  of 
liquor,  the  legality  of  contracts  made  in  pursuit 
of  the  business,  and  similar  questions  arise.  The 
trade  that  is  not  prohibited  is  protected. 

It  is  quite  probable,  however,  that  the  reader 
has  discerned  a difficulty  in  applying  these  reflec- 
tions concerning  trade  to  the  act  of  manufacture. 
To  sell,  is  an  act  of  trade.  To  manufacture  for 
purposes  of  sale,  is  equally  an  act  of  trade.  But 
to  manufacture  an  article  for  one’s  own  use  or 
enjoyment  is  not  an  act  of  trade.  Whatever 
control  Government  can  claim  over  the  sale  of 
liquor  as  a “ social  act,”  is  not  to  be  claimed  over 
the  manufacture  of  liquor  unless  it  be  manufac- 
ture/or  sale.  On  this  point  a valid  objection  can 
be  raised  by  those  who  occupy  Mill’s  ground, 
against  the  prohibitory  laws  now  in  force.  But  as 
a matter  of  fact,  while  the  prohibitory  provisions 
embedded  in  the  Constitutions  of  Maine,  Kansas 
and  Rhode  Island,  do,  literally  construed,  forbid 
the  manufacture  of  liquor  even  for  one’s  own  use, 
the  legislatures  have  never  made  this  literal  inter- 
pretation when  enacting  laws  for  the  eirforcement 
of  these  prohibitory  clauses.  The  prohibition,  as 
applied,  exteirds  only  to  the  acts  of  trade.*  Men 
ma}'  driirk  liquor,  under  Prohibition,  or  they  may. 


*The  proposed  coiistitutioiial  anieiidnienr  for  tlie  State  of  New  York 
(Bill  No.  227,  ill  Assembly,  January  26,  rS88, 1 avoids  tlie  objection  noted 
above.  It  forbids  not  the  inaniifactuie,  but  "Uie  niauufactiue /or 
sale.” 


THE  QUESTION  OF  PERSONAL  LIBERTY.  21 


as  the  law  is  generally  construed,  manufacture  it 
for  their  own  use.  So  far  the  claim  to  personal 
liberty  is  respected.  It  is  only  when  they  enter 
upon  its  barter  and  sale  that  the  law  confronts 
them. 


4-  Tlie  Question  of  Personal  Liberty. 

This  distinction  made  by  the  law  between  the 
dealer  and  the  drinker  furnishes  a clue  to  the  pur- 
pose of  the  law.  That  purpose  has  often  been 
conceived  to  be  the  reform  of  the  drinker.  Hora- 
tio Seymour,  Governor  of  New  York  in  1854,  in  a 
message  to  the  Legislature  vetoing  a bill  looking 
toward  Prohibition,  stated  his  objection  to  such 
laws  as  follows : 

“^11  experience  shows  that  temperance,  likd 
pother  virtues,  is  not  produced  by  law-makers,) 
^ut  by  the  influence  of  education,  morality,  and/ 
religion.” 

The  assumption  here  is  that  the  object  of  the 
law  is  to  produce  the  virtue  of  temperance — to 
protect  a man  from  his  own  weakness.  The 
same  idea  has  been  stated  more  recently  by  a Com 
gressman  .of  the  United  States,  as  follows: 

)ut  the  attempt  of  one  man  or  set  of  men) 

I whether  for  the  ‘ good  of  society  ’ or  any  other 
fcause,  to  reform  the  moral  conduct  of  others  bj 
nitward  force,  lias  always  failed  in  the  past,  anc 
^always  will  in  the  future.” — (^Speech  in  Corsicana^ 
Texas,  in  1888,  by  Roger  Q.  Mills,  U.  S.  Con- 
gressman from  Texas.') 

Notice  the  law  is  here  described  as  an  at- 


22  THE  QtJESTiOX  OF  PERSONAL  LIBERTY. 

tempt  “ to  reform  the  moral  conduct  by  out* 
“ward  force” — that  is,  to  coerce  a man  into  mor- 
ality. 

Samuel  J.  Tilden,  in  1855,  while  a candidate  for 
Attorney  General  of  New  York,  put  this  same 
objection  to  prohibitory  law  in  still  more  forcible 
language,  namely  : 

“ To-day,  while  it  [the  Democratic  party]  is  in 
favor  of  sobriety  and  good  morals,  it  disowns  a 
system  of  corceive  legislation  which  can  not 
produce  them,  but  must  create  many  serious 
evils — which  violates  constitutional  guarantees 
and  sound  principles  of  legislation — invades  the 
rightful  domain  of  the  individual  judgment  and 
conscience,  and  takes  a step  backward  toward 
that  barbarian  age  when  the  wages  of  labor,  the 
prices  of  commodities,  a man’s  food  and  cloth- 
ing, were  dictated  to  him  by  a Government 
calling  itself  paternal.” 

These  objections,  it  will  be  observed,  are  almost 
identical  in  nature  with  those  urgerl  by  John  Stu- 
art Mill,  and  which  have  been  considered  in  the 
preceding  pages.  The  purpose  of  this  prohibitory 
law  is  conceived  to  be  “to  reform  moral  conduct,” 
to  promote  total  abstinence  b}’'  “ coercive  legisla- 
“tion,”  and  believing,  with  Thomas  Jefferson,  that 
“ the  legitimate  powers  of  Government  extend  to 
“ such  acts  only  as  are  injurious  to  others  ” 
Thomas  Jefferson,  vol.  viii.  p.  400),  Mr.  Tilden 
and  Mr.  Seymour  naturally  object  to  a law 
which  presents  itself  to  them  as  an  attempt  to 


THE  QUESTION  OF  PERSONAL  LIBERTY.  23 

regulate  a man’s  conduct,  chiefly  because  it  is  inju- 
rious to 

It  is  needless  to  deny  that  their  conception  of 
the  law  is  the  one  that  has  obtained  the  widest 
acceptance,  and  the  objections  growing  out 
of  it  are  the  ones  most  frequently  urged 
and  with  the  strongest  effect.  Men  ever3'-where 
resent  Governmental  interference  with  conduct 
which  affects  themselves  alone.  “If  I want  to 
“ drink,  I have  the  right  to  do  it,”  is  the  popular 
way  of  putting  the  case.  “ This  is  a free  country,” 
said  a noted  orator  in  the  heat  of  the  last  cam- 
paign, “ and  if  a man  wants  to  get  drunk,  he 
“ has  a right  to  do  so  and  take  the  consequences.” 
‘ In  truth,”  said  Lord  Bramwell,  of  England, 
“ these  liquor  laws  are  either  to  make  men  better 
“ who  do  not  want  to  be  made  better,  or  to  make 
“ men  better  who  have  not  self-control,  and  in  both 
“ cases  at  the  expense  of  others.” 

By  many  persons  this  conception  of  the  law  is 
accepted  without  hesitation.  Of  course  it  is  the 
purpose  of  Prohibition,  so  they  think,  to  compel 
men  to  stop  drinking — what  else  can  it  be  ? It 
would  be  a genuine  surprise  to  many  to  be  told 
that  any  one  thinks  of  denying  that  this  is  the 
purpose  of  the  law. 

Yet,  as  a matter  of  fact,  the  iiersistent  iteration 
of  this  as  the  purpose  of  the  law,  has  been  met 
with  an  equally  persistent  denial  from  the  lead- 
ing advocates  of  Prohibition.  It  would  be  difficult 
to  mention  a single  sustained  argument  for  Prohi- 


24  THE  QUESTIOlSr  OF  PERSONAL  LIBERTY. 

bition  that  does  not  disavow  any  such  purpose  in 
view.  Judge  Pitman,  of  the  Superior  Court  of 
Massachusetts,  in  his  able  work  on  “ Alcohol  and 
“ the  State,”  says  : “ If  we  have  proved  anything  in 
“ the  course  of  this  discussion,  we  have  proved 
“ exactly  this : that  the  liquor  dealer  is  doing 
“ ‘ harm  to  others  ’ ’’—others,  that  is,  than  the 
dealer  and  the  drinker,  and  this  point  he  regards 
as  “ the  central  basis  upon  which  the  advocate  of 
“the  suppression  of  the  liquor  traffic  rests  his  case.” 
{pp.  119,  120.)  He  says  further  : 

“ To  this  extent  at  least  [forbidding  the  sale  of 
liquor]  it  seems  to  us  that  Government  not  only 
may,  but  ought  to  go.  And  no  prohibitory  laws  yet 
euacted  have  attenqDted  to  go  further.”  (p.  127.) 
He  makes  still  clearer  his  conception  of  the 
purpose  of  the  law  as  being,  not  protection  for  the 
drinker  from  his  own  acts,  not  the  reform  of  moral 
conduct,  but  protection  to  others,  in  the  following 
words : 

“ The  law  [of  Prohibition]  does  not  propose  to 
deal  directly  with  the  personal  habits  of  men. 
It  lays  its  hand  on  a traffic.  Sales  are  public 
acts,  and  alwaj's  within  the  domain  of  law. 
The  law,  for  sufficient  reasons  of  policy,  pre- 
scribes the  manner  and  modes  of  sales  of  real 
and  personal  property,  makes  void  what  it 
chooses,  regulates  what  it  deems  dangerous, 
forbids,  under  penalties,  what  it  thinks  mis- 
chievous. If  it  lays  either  a regulatinsr,  a restrain- 
ing, oi  a prohibiting  hand  upon  the  traffic  in 


THE  QUESTION  OF  PERSONAL  LIBERTY.  25 


intoxicants,  it  does  no  differently  from  what  it 
does  in  regard  to  adulterated  meat,  unwhole- 
some meat,  dangerous  explosives,  fire-works, 
obscene  publications,  lotterj’’  tickets,  and  num- 
erous other  subjects  of  sale.  The  only  ques- 
tions society  asks,  are:  Is  the  trade  injurious? 
Is  it  sufficiently  so  to  call  for  the  interference.” 
{pp.  91,  92.) 

John  B.  Finch,  who  was,  at  the  time  of  his 
death,  head  of  the  Order  of  Good  Templars  and 
Chairman  of  the  National  Committee  of  the  Pro- 
hibition party,  advocated  prohibitory  law  on  the 
same  principle  as  Judge  Pitman,  namely,  to  secure, 
not  the  reformation  of  the  drinker,  but  the  pro- 
tection of  society  against  the  evils  of  drink.  In  his 
work,  “The  People  vs.  The  Liquor  Traffic,”  he 
says : 

“Prohibitory  liquor  lawr  ..i  nowise  say  what  a 
man  shall  eat  or  what  he  shall  drink.  They 
simply  aim  to  protect  society  from  the  perni- 
cious influence  of  trade,  which  is  a social  institu- 
tion. In  no  respect  do  they  aim  to  interfere 
with  the  private  liberties  of  the  individual  until 
those  private  liberties  create  public  nuisances.” 
It  is  not  neces'  ary  to  add  to  these  quotations. 
It  is  sufficient  to  say  that  the  lines  of  reasoning 
on  which  prohibitory  laws  are  advocated  at  the 
present  time,  are  almost  uniformly  those  laid  down 
in  the  sentences  quoted  above  from  Judge  Pitman 
and  John  B.  Finch.  It  is  true  that  “ the  reform 
“ of  moral  conduct  ” is  hoped  for  as  a result  of  pro- 


26  THE  QUESTION  OF  PERSONAL  LIBERTY. 

hibitoiy  legislation.  It  is  hoped  that  in  the  ab- 
sence of  the  usual  public  incitements  to  drink 
men  will  cease  to  drink ; but  they  are  not  com- 
pelled to  cease,  not  even  indirectljL  for  the  art  of 
distillation  is  not  so  costly  or  difficult,  but  that, 
even  under  prohibitory  law,  households  might  dis- 
til their  own  liquor  as  well  as  bake  their  own 
bread.  The  farmer  in  Maine  is  accorded  the 
undisturbed  right  of  making  cider  for  his  family, 
and  making  it  as  hard  as  he  pleases.  All  that 
Prohibition  means  is  that  the  public  facilities  for 
the  gratification  of  this  appetite  must  cease  ; that 
the  saloon  shall  no  longer  exist ; and  that  if  men 
insist  on  drinking  the3^must  satisfy  their  desii’es  in 
some  other  way  than  through  the  channels  of 
trade.  This  is  all  that  the  law,  in  itself,  contem- 
plates, and  all  that  the  advocates  of  the  law  urge. 
They  contend  that  the  liquor  traffic  has  become 
an  organized  temptation ; that  the  saloon  with  all 
its  adjuncts  is  not  in  existence  simpl}-  to  respond 
to  a natural  craving  of  the  appetite,  but  to  create 
and  to  stimulate  appetite  ; that  it  is  impossible  to 
strip  the  saloon  of  this  inciting  character  except 
by  putting  an  end  to  its  very  existence. 

The  laws  against  gambling,  against  impurity, 
against  bribery,  are  advocated  by  many  whose 
chief  reason  for  advocating  them  is  the  belief  that 
a “ reform  of  moral  conduct  ” will  be  assisted  bj- 
them.  It  is  not  too  far-fetched  to  suppose,  even, 
that  to  many  the  chief  value  of  laws  against  theft, 
larceiy,  murder,  in  fact  laws  of  all  kinds,  lies  not 


THE  SIN  PER  SE. 


27 


in  tne  fact  that  they  are  a protection  fe  society 
Dnt  tnat  they  are  believed  to  aid  in  the  reforma- 
tion of  society.  Yet  it  would  not  do  to  stigmatize 
such  laws  as  attempts  “ to  reform  the  moral  con- 
“ duct  of  others,”  or  to  make  men  honest  and  virtu- 
ous “ by  a system. of  coercive  legislation.”  The 
reform  may  follow,  or  it  may  even  have  been  the 
object  of  those  enacting  the  law ; but  it  follows 
not  as  a coerced  reformation,  but  as  a natural 
result  of  the  changed  condition  which  the  law  has 
created.  “ It  is  the  duty  of  Government,”  says 
Gladstone,  “ to  make  it  easy  to  do  right  and  hard 
“to  do  wrong.”  Whether  or  not  this  is  accepted 
in  its  full  signification,  no  one  can  claim  that  it  is 
a part  of  the  dutj^  of  Government  to  make  it 
eaiy  to  do  wrong.  Yet  this,  in  a certain  sense, 
seems  to  be  just  whar  a Government  does  when  it 
uses,  for  the  barter  and  sale  of  liquor,  all  the 
powers  of  protection  which  it  has  at  command. 

In  brief,  while  a man  may  claim  the  right  to 
drink,  on  the  ground  that  he  injures  nobody  but 
himself,  can  he  claim  as  his  right  that  the  saloon, 
which  does  injure  somebody  else,  must  be  allowed 
to  continue  in  order  to  supply  him  with  drink? 

6.  The  Sin  per  Se. 

The  right  to  do  a thing  does  not,  however,  as 
has  been  observed,  imply  the  wisdom  of  doing  it. 
That  the  Government  has  a constitutional  right, 
or  even  a philosophical  and  moral  right  to  extir- 
pate the  liquor  traffic,  is  no  proof  that  it  would  be 
wise  to  exercise  that  right.  The  question  of 


28 


THK  STN  PER  SE. 


consequences  here  comes  in,  and  ought  to  receive 
attention.  The  Government  has  the  constitutional 
right  and  might  have  the  moral  right  to  declare 
war  against  a stronger  power ; yet  it  might  be  the 
part  of  wisdom,  from  fear  of  consequences,  not  to 
exercise  that  right.  It  is  true  that  a mistaken 
zeal  sometimes  impels  men  into  the  assertion  that 
consequences  are  not  to  be  taken  into  considera- 
tion in  determining  a course  of  conduct.  “Do 
“right,  and  trust  the  consequences  to  God,”  is, 
wlien  rightly  applied,  a motto  fit  for  a hero.  But 
the  fact  is  lost  sight  of  too  often,  that  it  is  only 
by  considering  the  consequences  that  one  is  at 
times  able  to  determine  which  of  two  courses  is 
rigid.  In  manj^  cases  it  is  the  consequences  alone 
that  determine  the  character  of  an  action.  Is  it 
right  or  wrong  to  defraud  your  neighbor?  Wrong. 
Why  wrong?  Not  because  of  the  consequences, 
but  because  of  the  inherent  nature  of  the  action. 
But  is  it  right  or  wrong  to  drink  a glass  of  liquor? 
Wrong,  will  again  be  the  answer  of  many,  but 
wrong  because  of  the  consequences.,  not  because  of 
the  inherent  sinfulness  of  the  action.  Herein  lies 
the  distinction  made  by  the  logicians  and  theologi- 
ans between  actions  which  are  sins  per  se,  that  is. 
sins  from  the  inherent  character  of  the  actions 
themselves,  and  those  actions  which  are  not  sins 
per  se.,  but  are  sins  because  of  their  consequences. 
To  steal  a dime  from  a rich  employer  may  not  in- 
volve much,  if  anything,  in  its  consequences,  but 
it  is  just  as  certainly  sinful  as  though  the  conse- 


! 


THE  SIN  PER  SE.  29 

quences  were  very  important.  Blasphemy  in  the 
midst  of  a desert  is  as  certainly  a sin  as  blasphemy 
in  a crowded  city.  The  sin  per  se  always  results 
from  a sinful  condition  of  the  mind  or  heart  of  \ 
the  one  committing  it.  The  discussion  whether  it 
is  a sin  per  se  to  drink  a*  glass  of  liquor,  groAvs 
really  empty  when  the  phrase  is  rightly  under- 
stood. The  sin  of  such  an  act  must  lie,  if  at  all, 
in  its  harmfulness,  that  is,  in  its  consequences, 
either  on  the  one  drinking  or  on  others.  If  liquor 
were  as  harmless  as  water  there  would  be  no  sin 
of  any  kind  in  drinking  it.  If  it  is  a sin  to  do  so, 
then  it  is  because  of  its  harmfulness.  A sin  per  se 
indicates  always  a rebellion  of  the  heart  against 
the  law  of  God  prior  to  the  commission  of  the 
sin.  No  one  will  claim  that  the  drinking  of  wine, 
for  instance,  always  indicates  such  an  act  of  con- 
scious rebellion  in  the  mind..  It  77iay  indicate  just 
that ; hut  it  may  not. 

This  distinction  has  become  one  of  more  than 
metaphysical  importance  in  the  present  contro- 
versies. There  are  large  religious  denominations, 
notably  the  Roman  Catholic  Church,  whose  the- 
ology will  not  allow  any  tolerance,  for  an  instant, 
ef  this  Manichaean  heresy  that  the  drinking  of 
wine  is  a sin  per  se.  The  use  of  the  phrase 
becomes  therefore  a matter  of  considerable  practi- 
cal importance.  To  base  the  argument  for  Prohi- 
bition upon  such  a claim  is  almost  certain  to 
alienate  a large  number  of  the  most  devout  churcu 


80  THE  CoiTTROVERSY  OVER  BIBLE  WINES. 

members.  It  is  arraying  religion  and  Prohibition 
in  hostility  instead  of  in  alliance. 

The  question  of  Prohibition,  then,  is  a question  of 
consequences  as  well  as  of  principles.  It  is  not 
desired  here,  however,  to  enter  upon  the  question 
whether  Prohibition  ♦actually  accomplishes  the 
results  aim^  at  ; that  portion  of  the  subject  is 
reserved  for  Part  II.  What  will  be  considered 
here  is  what  consequences  would  follow  provided 
Prohibition  were  fully  secured  and  completely 
enforced. 

6.  The  Controversy  over  Bible  Wines. 

One  of  the  serious  consequences  which  it  is 
claimed  would  ensue,  is  thus  stated  by  Rev. 
Dr.  Howard  Crosby  : 

“ A Prohibition  that  would  include  the  fermented 
juice  of  the  grape  wmuld  be,  however  we  might 
try  to  explain  it,  a reflection  upon  our  Lord 
and  upon  His  Holy  Word,  which  makes  wine  a, 
gift  of  God  and  a token  of  the  highest  bless- 
ings. It  would  be  a virtual  declaration  that  we 
know  a better  w’ay  than  He  knew  how  to  meet 
the  matter  of  human  indulgence,  and  that  He 
was  mistaken  in  His  conduct  and  in  His  teach- 
ing.”— (^Homiletic  Review.') 

The  same  objection  is  stated  by  Rev.  J.  R. 
Sikes,  author  of  “ The  Biblical  Reason  Why 
Prohibition  is  Wrong.”  In  the  preface  to  tliis 
work  the  author  says  : 

“We  lay  it  down  as  a fundamental  principle  that 
any  law  which  makes  it  a criminal  offense  to 


THE  CONTROVERSY  OVER  BIBLE  WlNSS.  31 

follow  the  example  of  Jesus  Christ,  or  live  in 
accordance  with  the  teachings  of  the  Bible  in 
matters  pertaining  to  the  personal  liberty  in 
eating  and  drinking,  so  fully  guaranteed  to  us 
in  the  Gospel,  is  anti-biblical  and  subversive  of 
religious  as  well  as  our  civil  rights.  This  Pro- 
hibition does  ****’’ 

In  another  place  the  same  authgr  says  : 

In  other  words,  which  is  the  greater  evil  ? The 
abuse  of  intoxicating  beverages  as  we  have  it, 
or  to  destroy  the  faith  of  the  masses  in  the 
Bible,  as  a correct  rule  of  faith  and  practice, 
and  to  put  in  force  a prohibitory  law  which 
impeaches  the  wisdom  of  God,  and  arraigns 
Jesus  Christ  as  a criminal  at  a bar  of  human 
tribunal.  Such  are  the  logical  and  natural 
sequences  of  the  Prohibition  now  advocated  * 
* * * — p.  36. 

Naturally  these  objections  bring  us  face  to  face 
with  the  question  of  Bible  wines,  and  the  dispute 
concerning  their  intoxicating  qualities.  As  the 
question  is,  however,  solely  one  of  biblical  scholar- 
ship, it  is  hardly  desirable,  nor,  as  will  appear, 
necessary,  to  do  more  than  briefly  to  indicate  the 
nature  of  the  controversy. 

In  the  Old  Testament  two  Hebrew  words, 
and  tirosh,  are  used  to  designate  wine.  Other 
words  are  used  occasionally  to  indicate  “ strong 
“ wine,”  “ red  wine,”  “ sweet  wine,”  “ mixed  wine,” 
and  “ blood  of  the  grape,”  but  it  is  about  these 
two  words  that  the  controversy  centres.  An 


32  THE  CONTKOVERSY  OVER  BIBLE  WINES. 

interesting  fact  has  been  observed  concerning  the 
use  of  these  words.  There  are  many  passages  where 
wine  is  spoken  of  as  a curse  and  where  warning 
is  uttered  against  its  use,  such  as  (Proverbs  xx. 
1) : “ Wine  is  a mocker,  strong  drink  is  raging  ; ” 
and  (Prhverbs  xxiii.  31,  32)  : “ Look  not  thou 
“ upon  the  wine  when  it  is  red,  when  it  giveth  his 
“ color  in  the  cup,  when  it  moveth  itself  aright. 
“ At  the  last  it  liiteth  like  a serpent  and  stingeth 
“like  an  adder.” 

In  many  other  passages,  however,  wine  is 
spoken  of  as  a blessing,  and  its  use  is  commended, 
' such,  for  instance,  as  (Proverbs  xxxi.  6)  : “ Give 
“ strong  drink  unto  him  that  is  ready  to  perish 
“and  wine  unto  those  that  be  of  heavy  hearts;” 
and  (Isaiah  Iv):  “Ho,  every  one  that  thirsteth 
u * * * come,  buy  wine  and  milk  without 
“ money  and  without  price.” 

Now  the  word  tirosh  is  never  used,  with  one 
doubtful  exception  (Hosea  iv.  11)  except  in 
those  passages  commendatory  of  wine.  The  word 
yayin^  however,  is  used  both  in  commendatory 
and  in  condemnatory  passages.  That  there  was 
some  distinction  in  the  minds  of  Old  Testament 
writers  between  the  word  yayin  and  the  word 
tironli  seems  to  be  admitted  by  both  sides  to  the 
discussion ; but  what  this  distinction  was  is  the 
source  of  dispute.  The  advocates  of  the  two-wine 
theory*,  contend  that  tirosh  means  wine  before  it 

* Among  tliese  are  Prof.  Moses  Stuart,  of  Andover,  Dr,  Eliphalet 
Nott,  late  President  of  Union  College,  Prof,  Tuyler  Lewis,  Dr,  F,  E. 
Lees,  Dr.  George  W.  Samson. 


THE  CONTROVERSY  OVER  BIBLE  WINES.  38 


has  fermented  and  become  intoxicating,  while 
yayin  is  a generic  term  covering  all  kinds  of  wine, 
and  meaning  sometimes  one  kind,  sometimes 
another,  just  as  we  use  the  word  water  to  desig- 
nate sometimes  fresh  water,  sometimes  salt  water. 
Those  opposing  this  theory  regard  tirosh  as  being 
the  husbandman’s  name  for  wine,  and  as  repre- 
senting wine  “in  its  germinant  state  in  the 
“vineyard,  in  the  process  of  manufacture  in  the 
“press  and  the  vat,  and,  after  fermentation,  in  its 
“ finished  state,  either  in  the  store-house,  where  it 
“ was  regarded  as  the  reward  of  the  husbandman’s 
“ care  and  toil,  or  among  the  tithes,  where  it  was 
“ expressive  of  gratitude  to  God  for  the  fruitful- 
“ness  of  the  earth.” — (^Bumstead' s Biblical  Sanc- 
tion for  Wmef  p.  67.)  The  word  yayin,  it  is 
held,  was  “the  common  every-day  word  for  wine; 
“the  word  of  the  consumer,  che  entertainer,  the 
“ merchant,  as  tirosh  was  the-  word  of  the  husband- 
“man  and  manufacturer.”-  p.  71.)  These 

opponents  of  the  two-wine  theory  claim,  of  course, 
that  tirosh  and  yayin  were  both  fermented,  and 
that  there  is  no  sanction  whatever  for  the  view 
that  tirosh  was  an  unfermented  wine. 

In  the  New  Testament,  the  Greek  word  almost 
invariably  used  to  designate  wine  is  uinos.  There 
is  the  same  dispute  concerning  this  that  exists 
concerning  yayin,  one  side  contending  that  it  was 
a generic  term,  meaning  sometimes  fermented 
and  sometimes  unfermented  wine,  the  other  side 
3 


84  THE  CONTROVERSY  OVER  BIBLE  WINES. 

contending  that  it  means,  wherever  used,  fer- 
mented  wine. 

From  this  brief  statement  of  the  controversy,  it 
will  be  seen  that  to  ask  for  a decision  on  this  ques- 
tion either  from  a legislature  or  by  popular  vote, 
would  be  about  as  appropriate  as  to  ask  for  a deci- 
sion from  the  same  source  on  the  question.  Who 
built  the  pyramids  ? or  Where  was  Homer  born  ? 
It  is  clearly  a question  to  be  settled  by  biblical 
and  philological  students  among  themselves.  All 
that  can  be  asked,  in  the  matter  of  legislation,  is 
that  it  be  such  as  will  not  force  either  side  to  violate 
their  convictions  of  religious  duty.  To  ask  that 
a Legislature  shall  refuse  to  prohibit  the  sale  of 
liquor  on  the  ground  that  Jesus  drank  it,  is  as 
manifestly  improper  as  to  ask  that  it  prohibit  the 
sale  on  the  ground  that  Jesus  did  not  drink  it. 
Surely  the  Legislature,  or  the  people,  are  not 
called  upon  to  settle  a controversy  of  this  sort 
when  considering  whether  public  interest  demands 
the  extinction  of  the  liquor  traffic  of  to-day. 

If  Prohibition  conflicts  with  the  relisfious  duties 
• — or  what  are  conceived  to  be  such — of  either 
side  to  the  controversy,  this  is,  of  course,  a serious 
objection.  But  no  one  claims  that  the  use  of  wine, 
except  at  the  Sacrament  of  the  Lord's  Supper,  is 
ever  a religious  duty.  As  a matter  of  fact,  all 
prohibitory  laws  yet  adopted  or  submitted  for 
adoption  (with  one  exception,  in  Michigan,  and 
that  the  result  of  an  oversight)  have  excepted 
from  their  provisions  the  use  of  liquor  for  sacra- 


THE  CONTROVERSY  OVER  BIBLE  WINES.  35 


mental  purposes,  and  the  sale  for  such  use.  Pro- 
hibition, therefore,  conflicts  with  no  religious 
duties.  The  most  that  can  be  said  is  that  it 
deprives  many  of  a privilege  which  the  teaching 
of  Scripture  and  the  example  of  Christ  (as  they 
conceive)  gives  them  the  right  to  enjoy  or  not 
as  they  wish.  In  other  words,  because  they 
believe  that  Christ  drank  fermented  wine  nine- 
teen centuries  ago,  they  demand  not  only  that  the 
State  give  them  the  right  to  drink  (which  it  does, 
even  under  Prohibition),  but  shall  continue  to 
authorize  the  prosecution  of  the  traffic,  at  what- 
ever jeopardy  to  public  interests,  in  order  that 
they  may  supply  themselves  with  drink. 

If  Prohibition  is  a reflection  upon  Christ,  as 
Di.  Crosby  maintains,  is  not  total  abstinence 
equally  a reflection  upon  Christ  ? Is  it  not  even 
much  more  of  a reflection  upon  him  ? The  law 
declares  that,  for  the  safety  of  public  interests, 
the  traffic  in  liquor  must  cease  (Christ  never 
engaged  in  the  traffic),  while  total  abstinence, 
which  is  enjoined  as  a duty  by  certain  of  the  lar- 
gest religious  denominations,  forbids,  for  similar 
reasons  of  expediency,  the  drinking  of  liquor 
except  for  medicinal  purposes.  If,  indeed,  the 
doctrine  of  total  abstinence  or  the  law  of  Prohi- 
bition impliea  that  the  drinking  or  the  making  of 
liquor  is,  like  stealing,  a sin  per  se,  an  act  inher- 
ently wrong,  then  there  would  be  an  implication 
that  Christ,,  if  he  made  and  drank  fermented  wine, 
had  committed  a sin.  But  there  is,  of  a certainty. 


36  THE  CONTROVERSY  OVER  BIBLE  WINES. 

no  such  implication  either  in  the  doctrine  or  the 
law,  no  matter  what  opponents  or  injudicious 
friends  of  either  may  say.  Such  a conception  of 
law  would  bring  us  at  once  into  antagonism  to  an 
almost  countless  array  of  civil  ordinances  and 
statutes  which  forbid  acts  not  sinful  in  themselves 
but  dangerous  to  the  welfare  of  society. 

“An  act  may  be  declared  criminal,”  says  Pike’s 
History  of  Crime  (vol.  II,  p.  492)  “ which  is 
“ not,  even  in  the  same  age,  regarded  as  in 
“itself  immoral,  and  another  may  be  considered 
“ immoral  which  does  not  involve  any  legal  pen- 
“ alties.” 

Dr.  Herrick  Johnson  has,  undoubtedly,  the  best 
of  legal  authority  for  the  reply  he  has  made  to 
Dr.  Crosby  in  the  following  words  : 

“ The  legal  prohibition  of  an  act  is  solely  on  the 
ground  of  its  evil  effects  upon  society^  and  not  at 
all  on  the  ground  of  the  inherent  evil  of  the  act  itself. 
Public  law  does  indeed  make  a distinction  be- 
tween  the  things  it  prohibits,  classifying  them 
as  evils  in  themselves  (mala  in  se)  and  evils 
prohibited  (mala  prohibita) ; but  the  ground  of 
their  prohibition  is  exactly  the  same.  Homi- 
cide, an  act  evil  in  itself  (malum  in  se),  is  pro- 
hibited. So  the  building  a frame  house  within 
the  fire  limits  of  a city,  an  act  not  evil  in  itself, 
is  prohibited.  There  is  inharent  moral  wrong  in 
homicide.  There  is  no  inherent  moral  vu’ong  in 
building  a frame  house.  But  the  law  seeks  to 
prevent  the  one  as  well  as  the  other,  solely  to 


THE  CONTROVEKSY  OVER  BIBLE  WINES.  37 


protect  society.  * * Clearly  the  inherent 
rightfulness  or  wrongfulness  of  an  act  has  noth- 
ing whatever  to  do  with  prohibition  of  it  by  law 
The  amount  and  character  of  the  evil  effects  upon 
others  are  what  determine  whether  any  given 
thing  shall  be  prohibited  or  not.  If  the  evils 
are  open,  public,  imperiling  public  interests,  dis- 
turbing public  order,  endangering  property  or 
human  life,  then  the  ground  is  furnished  for 
prohibition.  Ten  thousand  things  are  wrong  in 
themselves  that  the  law  never  touches,  and 
never  ought  to  touch;  while  things  right  and 
innocent  in  themselves,  the  law  often  pro- 
hibits.’’ 

“ The  evil  effects  upon  others  ” is  the  ground 
here  laid  down  by  Dr.  Johnson  for  Prohibition  of 
the  liquor  traffic.  “ General  reasons  of  public 
“ utility  ” is  the  phrase  J udge  Cooley  uses  when 
speaking,  in  his  great  work  on  “ Constitutional 
“ Limitations  ” (p.  728)  of  the  basis  on  which  laws 
restricting  or  prohibiting  the  traffic  in  liquor  rest. 
Chief  Justice  Shaw,  of  Massachusetts,  (case  of 
Fisher  vs.  McGirr)  refers  to  the  same  class  of  laws 
as  enacted  because  the  acts  which  they  forbid 
“would  be  injurious,  dangerous,  or  obnoxious,” 
not  because  they  would  be  sinful  or  even  immoral. 
And,  finally,  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United 
States  speaks  of  prohibitory  laws,  not  as  a declara- 
tion, in  any  wise,  regarding  the  moral  character  of 
the  drinking  or  selling  of  liquoi',  but  as  an  “ effort 
to  guard  the  community  against  the  evils  attend- 


38  THE  CONTROVERSY  OVER  BIBLE  WINES. 


“ ing  the  excessive  use  of  such  liquors,”  (^Mugler  vs 
The  State  of  Kansas  and  The  State  of  Kansas  vs 
Ziebold  and  Hagelin.') 

That  there  is  anything  in  the  principal  of  pro- 
hibitory law  which  conflicts  with  .|he  doctrines  of 
Scripture,  as  Rev.  Mr.  Sikes  asserts,  regarding  per- 
sonal liberty  in  eating  and  drinking,  seems  equally 
untenable.  The  law  of  the  Jews  forbade  the  use 
of  pork,  and  neither  the  Old  Testament  Scriptures, 
nor  the  words  of  Christ  ever  indicated  that  that 
law  was  offensive  to  divine  truth.  There  seem  to 
many  to  be  reasons  equally  as  good  for  the  Pro- 
hibition of  the  liquor  traffic  in  our  day  as  there 
were  for  Prohibition  of  the  use  of  pork  in  the  days 
of  Christ. 

It  is  difficult  to  see,  therefore,  how  the  contro- 
versy over  Bible  wines  in  use  in  the  days  of  the 
prophets,  or  those  in  use  in  the  days  of  Christ 
can  properly  affect  the  question  whether  the 
State,  in  the  exercise  of  its  police  power,  should 
put  an  end  to  the  traffic  in  liquors  as  a menace  to 
the  welfare  and  safety  of  society.  By  so  doing  it 
prevents  no  conduct  which  Christ  ever  enjoined 
upon  his  followers  as  a duty.  His  diet  was  never 
ordained  as  a diet  for  his  disciples.  If  food  which 
he  ate  or  liquid  which  he  drank  is  found  by  the 
Christian  of  to-day  injurious  or  distasteful,  he 
rejects  it  himself,  or  prohibits  it  for  his  family, 
with  no  thought  of  casting  any  “ reflection  ” on 
the  Saviour.  If  any  article  of  Christ’s  diet  is 
found  to  be  to-day,  through  the  weakness  of  men, 


THE  PHYSIOLOGICAL  EFFECTS  OF  ALCOHOL.  39 


or  the  peculiarity  of  the  climate,  or  any  other 
reason,  a source  of  wide-spread  mischief,  can  not 
the  State  with  equal  propriety  forbid  the  public 
traffic  therein? 

7.  The  Physiological  Effects  of  Alcohol. 

But  it  is  not  into  the  realms  of  philosophy  and 
religion  alone  that  this  question  leads  us.  The 
scientific  controversy  has  been  still  more  exhaust- 
ive and  exhausting.  If  the  importance  of  a sub- 
ject, like  the  importance  of  a city,  is  indicated  by 
the  number  of  avenues  of  approach  to  it,  this 
subject  must  be  one  of  the  greatest. 

Perhaps  the  most  elaborate  argument  ever  made 
against  Prohibition  was  that  delivered  in  1867 
before  the  Joint  Special  Committee  of  the  Massa- 
chusetts Legislature,  by  ex-Governor  John  A. 
Andrew.  Mr.  Andrew  was  employed  as  counsel 
for  those  petitioning  the  Legislature  for  a repeal 
of  the  prohibitory  law  then  on  the  statute  books  of 
that  State.  Almost  his  entire  address  consisted 
in  , an  assault  upon  two  positions  which  he  as- 
sumed to  be  the  basis  of  Prohibition,  namely,  the 
“ essentially  poisonous  character  of  alcoholic  bev- 
“ erages,”  and  “ the  immorality  of  their  use.”  To 
disprove  these  two  propositions  Mr.  Andrew  ex- 
pended all  his  force,  showing  the  shrewdness  of 
the  attorney  rather  than  the  wisdom  of  the  phil- 
osopher. For  the  supposition  that  Prohibition 
rests  upon  either  or  both  these  propositions  is  one 
that,  to  say  the  least  of  it,  needs  to  be  shown 
rather  than  assumed. 


40  THE  PHYSIOLOGICAL  EFFECTS  OF  ALCOHOL. 

Nevertheless,  the  question  regarding  the  physio- 
logical effects  of  alcoholic  liquors  is  one  that  lies 
very  near  to  the  subject  in  hand  and  demands  at- 
tention. If  alcoholic  liquors  are  of  considerable 
•dietetic  value — valuable,  that  is  to  say,  not  simply 
for  occasional  use  as  a medicine,  but  as  a part  of 
one’s  regular  diet — then  any  law  interfering  with 
such  use  involves  consequences  that  can  not  be 
overlooked.  The  grounds  of  controversy  can  be 
briefly  stated,  and  those  points  on  which  there 
is  practical  agreement  and  those  on  which  there 
is  difference  of  opinion  readily  seen. 

In  1842,  the  renowned  chemist,  Baron  Liebig, 
propounded  a theory  with  regard  to  food,  which 
has  since,  with  some  recent  modifications,  retained 
the  general  acceptance  of  physiologists  of  the 
world.  His  theory,  biiefly  stated,  comprised  the 
division  of  all  foods  into  two  classes,  namely, 
plastic  foods,  or  those  which  aid  in  building  up 
the  structures  of  the  body;  and  respiratory  foods, 
or  those  which  aid  in  producing  heat.  In  all  the 
plastic,  or  structure-building,  foods,  it  was  found 
that  nitrogen  was  contained  as  an  important  ele- 
ment. The  respiratory  foods  were  found  to  be 
hydro-carbons,  which  undergo  oxidation  in  the 
system,  and  thus  aid  in  furnishing  heat  and 
force. 

In  making  his  classifications,  Liebig  classified 
alcohol  as  a respiratory  food  (“  Animal  Chemistry,” 
p.  35)  expressly  stating  that  it  was  not  a structure' 
building  food  since  it  had  “ no  element  capable  of 


THE  PHYSIOLOGICAL  EFFECTS  OF  ALCOHOL.  4J 


“ entering  into  the  composition  of  blood,  muscular 
“ fibre,  or  any  part  which  is  the  seat  of  the  vital 
“principle.”  It  was  considered  a heat-producing 
food  however,  since  it  contains  both  hydrogen  and 
carbon,  and  inasmuch  as  its  use  is  followed  by  an 
increase  of  heat  on  the  surface  of  the  body. 

This  classification  of  alcohol  was  accepted  with 
but  little  or  no  dissent,  until  thirty  years  later, 
when  two  French  scientists,  Lallemand  and  Perrin, 
assisted  by  Duroy,  published  the  results  of  a 
series  of  experiments  which  they  had  conducted. 
In  these  experiments,  they  claimed  to  have  dis- 
covered two  facts,  namely,  (1)  that  alcohol,  un- 
changed by  combustion  or  in  any  other  way,  was 
eliminated  from  the  system  in  the  breath,  in  the 
excretions,  and  by  the  skin ; and  (2)  that  none  of 
the  derivatives,  such  as  aldehyde  and  acetic  acid, 
which  are  formed  in  the  combustion  of  alcohol, 
were  to  be  found  anywhere  in  the  system.  Their 
conclusion,  therefore,  was  that  alcohol  did  not 
undergo  combustion,  but  was  expelled  in  toto,  as 
an  intruder,  from  the  body. 

This  conclusion  was,  in  turn,  generally  accepted, 
until  several  years  later  still,  when  Dr.  Anstie,  of 
England,  and,  after  him,  Drs.  Thudichum,  Schul- 
inus,  and  Dupre,  announced  the  result  of  a series 
of  experiments,  covering  a number  of  years.  They 
made  careful  comparison  between  the  amount  of 
alcohol  administered  to  living  animals,  and  the 
amount  which  was  to  be  found  afterward  in  the 
various  excretions  of  the  body.  In  one  case  the 


42  THE  PHYSIOLOGICAL  EFFECTS  OF  ALCOHOL. 

animal  was  put  to  death  suddenly  two  hours  after 
the  alcohol  was  administered,  and  an  analysis  was 
made  of  every  part  of  the  body — bone,  fiber,  hair, 
and  all.  (See  The  Practitioner  for  July,  1874.) 

The  result  was  that  while  a portion  of  the  alco- 
hol was  in  each  case  found  to  be  unchanged  by 
combustion,  this  was  but  a fraction  of  the  entire 
quantity  administered.  The  rest,  it  was  con- 
cluded, underwent  change,  in  some  way,  witlfin 
the  system,  and  the  inference  generall}'-  drawn  was 
that,  as  Liebig  Lad  announced,  it  was  changed  by 
combustion,  and  thus  aided  in  the  production  of 
heat.  Alcohol  was  at  once  restored,  then,  to  the 
rank  of  a respiratory  food. 

Still  another  series  of  experiments  threw  addi- 
tional  light  on  the  subject.  As  early  as  1850, 
Dr.  N.  S.  Davis,  of  Chicago,  (afterward  President 
of  the  American  Medical  Association,  and,  in 
1887,  President  of  the  International  Medical  Asso- 
ciation which  convened  in  Washington)  had  con- 
ducted a series  of  careful  experiments  which 
appeared  to  indicate  “ that  the  presence  of  alcohol 
actually  reduced  the  temperature  of  the  bodi’.”  * 
Thirteen  years  later  (1863)  Dr.  B.  W.  Richardson, 
F.  R.  S.,  undertook,  at  the  request  of  the  British 
Association  for  the  Advancement  of  Science,  a 
series  of  very  elaborate  experiments  on  the  effects 
of  nitrate  of  amyl,  which  led  him  into  a special 
study  of  the  properties  of  alcohol.  The  result 
was  as  stated  in  his  “ Ten  Cantor  Lectures  ” 


* “Alcoholic  Liquors  in  the  Practice  of  Medicine.”  p.  3. 


THE  PHYSIOLOGICAL  EFFECTS  OF  ALCOHOL.  43 


(p,  116)  that  he  found  the  administration  of  alco- 
hol to  a living  animal  to  be  followed  by  an  actual 
reduction,  instead  of  increase,  of  the  products  of 
combustion  ; and  that  in  every  stage  of  effect,  the 
general  temperature  of  the  animal  was  lowered 
instead  of  raised.  Bfis  conclusion  was  that  alco- 
hol does  not  undergo  combustion,  since  no  trace 
can  be  found  of  either  the  products  or  the  effects 
of  it.  In  other  words,  as  laconically  expressed  by 
Dr.  F.  R.  Lees  : “ no  ashes  ; no  fire.” 

But  the  point  of  controversy  shifted.  It  has 
been  known  for  many  5 ears  that  one  of  the  effects 
of  alcohol  is  to  reduce  the  amount  of  waste  tissue 
which  is  eliminated  from  the  system.  All  the 
processes  of  animal  life  are  attended  with  the  de- 
struction, as  is  well  known,  of  cellular  tissue,  and 
its  elimination  from  the  system.  It  is  agreed  that 
alcohol  reduces  the  amount  eliminated,  but  the 
way  in  which  it  effects  this  has  become  now  the 
central  point  of  controversy.  The  view  held  by 
Dr.  Win.  B.  Carpenter,  Dr.  N.  S.  Davis,  Dr.  Rich- 
ardson and  others  is  that  this  effect  is  accom- 
plished by  “ obstructing  the  removal  of  the  effete 
“ matter  of  the  tissues”  (Address  of  Dr.  Carpenter 
in  Tremont  Temple,  Boston,  Dec.  3,  1882.)  The 
view  held,  on  the  contrary,  by  Prof.  J.  F.  W. 
Johnson,  Dr.  Hammond,  and  others  is  that  alco- 
hol really  retards  the  destruction  of  the  tissue,  and 
in  this  way  effects  a saving  of  material.  It  is  con- 
ceded, however,  that  no  such  retardation  of  the 
natural  processes  of  life  is  desirable  in  time  of 


44  THE  PHYSIOLOGICAL  EFFECTS  OF  ALCOHOL. 

health ; but  in  time  of  disease,  and  especially  in 
certain  fevers,  it  is  claimed  that  alcohol,  by  retard- 
ing the  oxygenation  and  the  undue  wasting  of  the 
tissue,  acts  as  a valuable  remedial  agent. 

Such  is  a mere  outline,  touching  only  the  more 
salient  points,  of  a controversy  which  has  waged 
more  or  less  intermittently  for  a generation,  and 
given  birth  to  numerous  volumes;  but  which  has 
not  by  any  means  been  settled.  It  may  be  said, 
perhaps,  that  there  is  practical  agreement  on  tlie 
statement  made  by  Dr.  Willard  Parker,  in  his 
Preface  to  Dr.  Richardson’s  “Ten  Cantor  Lec- 
“ tures,”  namely,  that  “ alcohol  has  no  place  in  the 
“ healthy  system ; ” but  the  value  of  this  agreement 
is  modified  by  the  fact  that  few  people  are  in  a 
state  of  perfect  health.  One  other  point  of  prac- 
tical agreement  is  this,  that  alcohol  is  at  times  use- 
ful for  medicinal  purposes,  but  at  just  what  times 
and  in  just  what  quantities  is  something  on  which 
there  is  a wide  variance  of  professional  opinion. 
Some  advise  it  as  a daily  tonic  for  many  different 
kinds  of  ailments,  while  others  claim  that  it  can  be 
dispensed  with  altogether,  the  editor  of  the  Bos- 
ton Journal  of  Chemistry,  Dr.  J.  R.  Richols,  going 
so  far  as  to  claim  that  there  is  no  use  to  which 
alcohol  is  put  for  which  a less  hazardous  and 
equally  efficacious  substitute  has  not  been  found. 

When  the  doctors  differ,  who  shall  decide  ? Evi- 
dently each  doctor  must  decide  for  himself,  in 
cases  of  his  own.  This  difference  of  professional 
opinion  is  not  pecuhar  to  alcohol ; it  extends,  to  a 


THE  PHYSIOLOGICAL  EFFECTS  OF  ALCOHOL.  45 


greater  or  less  extent,  to  nearly  every  drug  in  the 
Materia  Medica.  Legislatures  can  not  decide  this 
scientific  question  any  better  than  the  bibical 
question.  They  can  do  nothing  else  than  recog- 
nize the  disagreement,  and-  leave  each  doctor  free 
to  administer  this  drug,  alcohol,  as  he  is  free  to 
administer  other  dangerous  drugs,  such,  for 
instance,  as  morphine  and  laudanum.  If  legisla- 
tion does  this,  it  certainly  does  all  that  science  can 
possibly  ask. 

Does  prohibitory  legislation  give  this  freedom  to 
physicians  ? 

There  can  be  no  doubt  that  it  is  the  design  of 
the  law  so  to  do,  though  that  design  has  at  times 
been  imperfectly  carried  out.  Every  prohibitory 
law  yet  passed,  or  submitted  to  the  people,  has 
made  an  exception  of  liquors  sold  for  medicinal 
purposes,  and  allowed  such  sale  under  what  were 
deemed  necessary  regulations.  These  regulations 
vary  in  different  States.  In  Maine  a town  agent  is 
appointed  by  the  Selectmen  of  any  town,  or  by  the 
Mayor  and  Board  of  Aldermen  of  any  city,  who 
receives  a compensation  fixed  by  the  board  appoint- 
ing him,  and  whose  duty  it  is  to  sell  the  liquor 
demanded  for  medicinal,  mechanical,  and  manu- 
facturing purposes.  But  “no  such  agent  shall 
“have  any  interest  in  such,liquors  or  in  the  profits 
“ of  the  sale  thereof. ”-(  Qliapter  140,  Latvs  of  Maine, 
1887.)  In  Massachusetts,  town  and  city  agents 
were  similarly  appointed  under  the  prohibitory 
law  on  the  statute-books  from  1855  to  1867 ; but 


46  THE  PHYSIOLOGICAL  EFFECTS  OF  ALCOHOL. 

with  this  difference,  that  in  Maine  the  liquor  is 
purchased  by  the  appointing  board,  from  a State 
commissioner,  whose  salary  is  fixed,  and  the  agent 
is  supplied  by  the  board ; while  in  Massachusetts 
the  State  commissioner,  appointed  by  the  Gov- 
ernor, supplied  the  town  agents  direct  throughout 
the  State.  A State  assayer  was  also  appointed 
who  analyzed  the  liquor  purchased  by  the  Com- 
missioner and  certified  to  its  purity.  Both  Com- 
missioner and  Assayer  were  paid,  not  by  fixed 
salaries,  but  by  certain  commissions  on  all  sales. 
The  result  was  frequent  complaint  both  of  the 
quality  of  liquor  and  the  price,  and  the  dissatisfac- 
tion with  these  provisions  led  the  faculty  of  the 
College  of  Pharmacy  in  Boston  to  petition  in  1867 
for  a repeal  of  the  law. 

In  Iowa  and  Kansas  registered  pharmacists 
alone  are  allowed  to  sell  liquor,  and  they  can  sell 
only  to  applicants  who  present  an  application 
signed  by  a physician  and  by  the  applicant,  setting 
forth  the  kind  and  amount  of  liquor  desired,  and 
the  purpose  for  which  it  is  required.  A record  of 
sales  must  be  kept  by  the  pharmacist  and  submitted 
at  intervals  to  the  probate  judge.  Under  the  law 
requiring  pharmacists  to  pass  an  examination 
before  being  registered,  an  efficient  safeguard  is 
maintained  against  the  conversion  of  saloons  into 
psenrlo-drngstores.  and  the  continuance,  under 
such  a disguise,  of  the  outlawed  business. 

What  the  law,  then,  designs  to  accomplish, 
and.  more  or  less  successfully,  does  accomplish,  is 


THE  PHYSIOLOGICAL  EFFECTS  OF  ALCOHOL.  4? 

not  to  deprive  physicians  of  the  right  to  adminis- 
ter  alcohol  as  they  see  fit,  but  to  place  the  admin- 
istering of  it  wholly  in  their  hands,  and  to  let  their 
judgment  determine  in  each  case,  not  the  judg 
ment  of  the  drinker  himself.  If  alcohol  is,  indeed, 
of  special  medicinal  or  dietetic  value,  certainly 
science  has  nothing  to  gain  from  each  individual’s 
determining  for  himself  just  how  much  alcohol  he 
ought  to  have,  how  often  he  ought  to  take  it,  and 
in  what  form,  whether  as  beer,  brandy,  gin,  whis- 
key, or  some  other  form.  Certainly  the  doctors 
would  be  the  first  to  deplore  any  such  loose 
method  in  the  use  of  any  other  powerful  drug ; 
but  in  the  case  of  aleohol  such  use  is  rendered 
doubly  unscientific  by  its  attractions  for  the  appe- 
tite and  its  delusions  for  the  mind.  Prohibitory 
law,  therefore,  does,  to  the  extent  to  which  it  suc- 
ceeds in  carrying  out  its  design,  reinforce  medical 
science  and  vindicate,  instead  of  challenging,  its 
rights. 

In  the  preceding  pages,  it  will  have  been  ob- 
served, no  attempt  has  been  made  to  state  any- 
thing but  the  negative  side  of  the  question.  Atten- 
tion has  been  given  not  so  much  to  the  considera- 
tions urged  in  behalf  of  Prohibition,  as  to  the 
objections  urged  against  it.  If  the  views  so  far 
set  forth  are  correct  ones,  then  the  c^rion  objec- 
tions to  Prohibition  on  legal,  philosophical,  scrip- 
tural and  scientific  grounds,  are  in  reality  base- 
less, and  founded  in  misconception. 


48  THE  PHYSIOLOGICAL  EFFECTS  OF  ALCOHOL. 

The  question  still  remains,  why  should  this  one 
form  of  traffic  be  singled  out,  and,  except  within 
very  narrow  limits,  forbidden  by  law  ? 

Every  form  of  traffic  is  attended  with  more  or 
less  of  evil  effects.  The  traffic  in  diy-goods  and 
that  in  jewelry  may  incite  to  extravagance.  The 
traffic  in  staples  may  lead  to  speculative  excesses. 
That  in  railroad  stocks  may  give  birth  to  stock- 
jobbing  iniquities.  Yet  no  one  proposes  the  pro- 
hibition of  these  forms  of  traffic,  nor  even  pro- 
poses such  restrictions  as  are  likely  to  cripple 
them  seriously.  Why  then  is  such  a severe  restric- 
tion proposed  for  the  traff  : in  alcoholic  liquors? 
An  adequate  answer  oan  be  found  only  by 
showing : 

That  the  evil  effect.^  of  the  drink  traffic^  as  com- 
pared to  its  benefits^  are  of  exceptional  magnitude  and 
gravity. 

That  these  evil  effects  are  practically  inseparable 
from  the  traffc. 

That  these  evil  effects  are  by  no  means  confined  to 
those  who  participate  in  the  traffic,  either  as  buyers 
or  sellers  of  drink,  but  extend,  in  a serious  degree, 
to  society  in  general. 

We  come  then  to  a consideration  of  the  effects 
of  the  drink  traffic,  their  nature  and  their  extent. 
BYr  purposes  of  convenience,  these  effects  may  be 
divided  into  three  classes,  as  follows : 

1.  The  moral  and  physical  effects,  including  the 
relation  of  drink  to  vice,  crime,  and  disease. 

2.  The  economic  effects,  including  the  relation 


DRINK  AND  CRIME. 


49 


of  drink  to  industrial  conditions,  to  taxation,  and 
to  pauperism. 

3.  The  political  effects  of  drink  and  the  associ- 
ations inseparable  from  it. 

8.  Drink  and  Crime. 

In  considering  the  evidence  concerning  the  con- 
nection between  drink  and  crime,  one  is  embar- 
rassed chiefly  by  the  multitude  of  testimonies 
from  judges,  police  officers,  keepers  of  prisons, 
jails,  and  reformatory  institutions,  and  the 
agents  of  charitable  institutions.  As  a rule,  these 
testimonies  have  been  gratuitously  given,  called 
forth  either  by  some  unusual  experience  or  by 
the  inquiries  of  temperance  societies.  Under  such 
circumstances  the  objection  might  be  raised  that, 
in  the  main,  these  testimonies  represent  extraor- 
dinary rather  than  ordinary -'experiences.  Men 
with  a startling  experience  on  this  subject  are 
more  likely  to  call  public  attention  to  it  than 
those  whose^"  'experience  has  been  commonplace. 
This  must  be  borne  in  mind  frequently  in  weigh- 
ing such  testimonies,  and  in  reaching  general  con- 
clusions. But  no  such  discount  need  be  made  in 
the  case  of  official  investigations,  when  men 
appear,  not  of  their  own  volition,  but  in  response 
to  official  summons.  Unfortunately,  such  investi- 
gations have  been  almost  unknown  in  this  coun- 
try. For  many  years  the  attempt  has  been  made 
to  secure  from  Congress  a Commission  of  Inquiry, 
but  the  attempts  have  been  steadily  thwarted  in 
the  lower  House.  It  is  impossible  for  private 


bO  DRINK  AND  CRIME. 

enterprise  to  supply  the  place  of  such  a commis- 
sion, since  there  would  be  no  power  to  summon 
witnesses  and  command  their  compliance. 

In  England,  however,  different  treatment  has 
been  accorded  the  subject.  Probably  the  fullest 
investigation  ever  made  into  the  results  of  intem- 
perance was  instituted  in  1876,  by  a Special  Com- 
mittee appointed  by  the  House  of  Loids.  The 
evidence  laid  before  that  committee  is  published 
in  four  large  quarto  volumes,  and  covers  not  only 
the  United  Kingdom,  but  many  of  the  countries 
in  Continental  Europe.  IMost  of  the  testimony 
taken  in  detail  related  to  the  four  large  cities  of 
London,  Liverpool,  Manchester  and  Birmingham. 
Valuable  figures  were,  however,  obtained  for  all  of 
England,  Scotland,  and  Wales. 

It  appears  that  in  the  Metropolitan  Police  District 
(London  and  outlying  districts)  in  the  year  end- 
ing in  1876,  the  number  of  arrests  for  “drunk  and 
“incapable  ” and  for  “ drunk  and  disorjierly  ’’  was 
32,328  (Second  Rep.,  App.  K.,  p.  393,)  nearly  one- 
half  of  these  (15,558)  being  females.  All  the 
cases  of  assault  and  disorder,  numbering  16.713 
(Third  Rep.,  App.  D.  j).  314,)  were,  with  the 
exception  of  227,  committed  by  persons  under  the 
influence  of  drink.  Judge  Davis,  counsel  for  the 
Police  Commissioners  of  London,  in  the  course  of 
a long  and  valuable  statement,  said : 

“ Speaking  of  the  absolute  amount  of  drunken- 
ness, of  course  I do  not  dispute  for  a moment 
(it  would  be  merely  repeating  what  judges  say 


DUINK  AND  CRIME. 


51 


over  and  over  again)  the  great  connection  there 
is,  beyond  doubt,  between  the  charges  of  drunken- 
ness and  all  those  associated  street  offenses  and 
real  crimes,  from  simple  assaults  to  assaults  with 
instruments,  stabbing,  wounding,  and  so  forth, 
resulting  in  death,  invtjlving  charges  of  man- 
slaughter, or  murder,  as  the  case  may  be;  that 
is  obviously  so.” — (^First  Rep.^  p.  123.) 

In  the  city  of  Liverpool,  the  statistics  presented 
to  the  Commission  by  Wm.  Hoyle,  a statistical  spe- 
cialist, show  that  out  of  <62,831  persons  arrested  in 
Liverpool  in  the  two  years  1871-’73,  for  crimes  of 
all  kinds,  two-thirds  (41,042)  were  drunk  when 
arrested,  the  proportion  being  about  three  men  to 
two  women. — {Third  Rep.^  App.  B.^p.  311.)  It  is 
not,  perhaps,  just  to  claim  that  every  crime  com- 
mitted while  under  the  influence  of  drink  is  due  to 
drink  as  a sole  cause  ; but  with  few,  if  any,  excep- 
tions, it  must  be  regarded  as  an  auxiliary  cause. 
The  number  of  arrests  due  solely  to  the  cause  of 
drink  was  only  about  one-half  the  above  number. 

In  Manchester,  during  the  five  years  1868-1872, 
inclusive,  the  total  number  of  those  arrested  for 
all  causes  and  brought  before  the  magistrates,  was 
106,424.  Of  this  number  nearly  one-third 
(32,785)  were  charged  with  drunkenness,  but 
more  than  twice  that  number,  or  nearly  two-thirds 
(67,802)  w’ere  drunk  when  arrested. — {Third  Rep. 
App.  B.,  p.  311.)  The  following  is  a brief  extract 
from  the  testimony  of  the  Head  Constable  of  Man- 
chester ; (First  Rep.,  p.  171.) 


62 


DRINK  AND  CRIME. 


Q.  1664.  Do  you  connect  many  of  the  crimes  of 
violence  which  come  under  the  notice  of  the 
police  with  drunkenness  ? 

I ’connect  crimes  of  violence  with  drunkenness, 
undoubtedly. 

Q.  1665.  Does  that  apply  to  no  other  forms  of 
crime  ? 

Drunkenness  leads  to  loss  of  work  and  very  often 
to  theft,  but  assault  and  crimes  of  violence  are 
mostly  in  connection  with  drunkenness. 

In  the  testimony  regarding  Birmingham,  an 
important  fact  was  developed  in  the  testimony  of 
ex-Mayor  Sir  Joseph  Chamberlain,  now  the  leader 
of  the  Liberal  Unionists.  He  stated  that  on  a 
Saturday  evening  a short  time  previous,  special 
watchers,  for  whose  character  he  vouched,  had 
kept  tally  of  the  persons  coming  out  of  thirty-five 
fairly  representative  public  houses  in  different 
parts  of  the  city,  between  the  hours  of  eight  and 
twelve.  Their  reports  showed  15,057  persons 
(9,351  males,  5,706  females)  coming  out  in  the 
specified  time,  of  whom  838  were  visibly  drunk. 
Yet  the  police  returns  showed  that  there  were  in 
the  entire  city,  during  the  twenty-four  hours  of 
the  same  day,  but  twenty-nine  arrests  for  drunk 
enness.  “ If  to-morrow  it  were  necessary  for  any 
“purpose,”  said  Mr.  Chamberlain,  “I  could  under- 
“take  to  have  the  statistics  of  Birmingham  made 
“ten  times  as  bad  as  they  were  before  ; just  one 
“turn  of  the  screw  would  bring  in  ten  times  the 
“number  [of  arrests  for  drunkenness].” — (^Secoiid 


DRINK  AND  CRIMK. 


53 


Rep.  p..,  235.)  This  indicates  pretty  clearly  that 
whatever  inaccuracies  there  may  be  in  police 
reports  on  this  point,  in  England,  at  least,  they 
certainly  do  not  overstate  the  truth  about  drunk- 
enness. 

It  was,  in  fact,  indicated  by  the  testimony  of 
the  police  officials  that  the  uniform  practice  is  not 
to  arrest  every  man  who  is  drunk,  but  only  those 
who  are  creating  a disturbance  or  who  are  incap- 
able of  walking  safely  along  the  street.  So  that 
there  is  no  risk  whatever  taken  in  assuming  that 
each  case  of  drunkenness  that  appears  on  these 
records  stands  for  a public  disturber  or  a public 
nuisance. 

The  total  number  of  arrests  for  drunkenness  in 
England  and  Wales,  in  1875,  according  to  figures 
obtained  by  the  Committee  idf  the  House  of  Lords, 
was  203,989  QFinal  Rep.p.  xxxiv').,  having  increased 
to  that  number  from  88,361  in  1860.  This  means 
a proportion  of  one  public  offense,  due  solely  to 
drink,  to  each  112  of  population.  In  addition  to 
these  were  offenses  committed  under  the  influence 
of  drink,  and  in  which  it  must  be  reckoned  as  an 
auxiliary  cause,  and  which,  in  tlie  cities  of  Liver- 
pool and  Manchester  (the  only  cities  from  which 
figures  were  furnished  for  a comparison  on  this 
point),  equalled  the  number  of  arrests  for  which 
drink  was  the  sole  cause. 

The  statistics  furnished  the  committee  for  Scot- 
land give,  in  twenty-six  counties,  the  number  of 
total  arrests  for  all  crimes,  and  the  number  of 


54 


Drink  and  crime. 


those  who  were  drunk  when  arrested.  In  these 
counties,  with  a combined  population  of  1,565,803, 
the  total  of  ar-rests  for  three  years,  1874-’75-’76, 
was  66,346.  More  than  one-half  (34,806)  were 
drunk  when  arrested.  These  counties,  too,  were 
chiefly  rural  districts,  fifteen  having  a population 
of  less  than  50,000  and  but  four  having  a popula- 
tion of  over  100,000.  In  these  rural  counties, 
therefore,  there  was,  on  an  average,  one  public 
offense  (not  counting  of  course  those  undetected 
by  the  police)  each  year,  due  to  drink  as  either 
the  sole  or  an  auxiliary  cause,  for  every  135  of 
population.  How  large  the  number  of  such 
offenses  is  which,  either  in  the  cities  or  rural  dis- 
tricts, are  unnoticed  by  the  police,  can  onl}*  be 
surmised. 

Statistics  of  this  sort  for  the  United  States  can 
be  obtained  in  piecemeal  only,  and  at  considerable 
difficulty.  One  of  the  minor  disadvantages  of  our 
republican  form  of  government  is  that  criminal 
statistics  are  kept  on  a sort  of  “go-as-you-please  ” 
plan,  so  that  in  certain  cities  while  the  figures  will 
be  kept  with  care  from  year  to  year,  in  others  the 
police  officials  can  give  the  figures  for  their  term 
of  office  only.  The  Prison  Reform  Association,  it 
is  understood,  is  striving  for  some  improvement 
in  this  matter,  but  as  yet  the  best  that  can  be 
done  apparently  is  to  consider  the  figures  for  a 
number  of  fairly  representative  cities  scattered 
throughout  the  country. 

In  “ The  Political  Prohibitionist  for  1887,'’  com- 


DRINK  AND  CRIME. 


55 


piled  by  W.  W.  Spooner  and  C.  De  F.  Hoxie,  a 
table  is  published  (p.  59)  giving  the  number  of 
arrests  in  1886  for  all  causes,  the  number  of 
arrests  for  drunkenness,  and  the  number  of  arrests 
for  drunkenness,  disorderly  conduct,  and  assault 
combined,  for  58  cities  of  the  Union.  The  figures 
■were  obtained  partly  from  the  published  reports 
of  police  officials  and  partly  from  direct  correspon- 
dence with  them.  In  these  58  cities  (see  Appen- 
dix, note  B.),  in  17  different  States,  with  a total 
population  (6,316,572)  of  more  than  one-tenth 
the  entire  population  of  the  country,  the  total 
number  of  arrests  for  all  causes  was  304,478,  and 
of  these  191,460  were  for  drunkenness,  drunken- 
ness and  disorderly  conduct,  and  assaults.  From 
this  a very  small  reduction  should  be  made  for 
assaults  not  due  to  drink.  From  these  figures  it 
appears  that  in  these  fifty-eight  cities,  for  every 
thirty-four  of  the  population,  there  was  one  offense 
against  public  order  and  decency,  due  solely  to 
drink,  comprising  more  than  three-fifths  of  all  the 
offenses  for  which  the  police  were  called  on  to 
intervene. 

It  seems  to  be  unnecessary,  with  official  evi- 
dence of  this  kind  in  hand,  to  recall  the  testi- 
monies made  public  in  such  abundance  by  judges, 
police  officers,  grand  juries,  and  wardens  and 
chaplains  of  penal  institutions.  This  testimony 
varies,  in  the  precise  proportions  of  crime  esti- 
mated as  due  to  drink,  but  it  is  unanimous  on 
the  general  fact  that  a large  proportion  of  the 


56 


. DKINK  AND  CRIME. 


crimes  of  violence  are  clue  directly  to  drink,  and 
that  many  other  crimes  are  due  to  it  as  an  auxili- 
ary cause. 

One  thing  especially  should  be  noted : That 
these  public  offenses  due  to  drink  are  of  precisely 
that  class  which  it  is  the  first  duty  of  Government 
to  guard  against,  namely,  offenses  against  personal 
safety  and  public  order.  So  overmastering  does 
even  Herbert  Spencer  consider  the  duty  of  Gov- 
ernment to  furnish  protection  in  these  respects, 
that  he  contends  for  a citizen’s  right,  if  the  State 
fails  in  its  duty  at  this  point,  to  release  himself 
from  all  obligations  to  aid  in  its  support.  The 
crimes  of  violence  are  the  very  ones  which  figure 
most  largely  in  the  count  against  drink,  next  to 
the  crime  of  simple  drunkenness  which  is,  in 
itself,  a public  nuisance  and  disturbance. 

In  its  efforts  to  guard  against  these  crimes,  the 
State  deals  now  chiefly  with  the  drunkard,  not 
with  the  traffic.  Whatever  truth  there  may  be  in 
the  saying,  “You  can’t  make  a man  sober  by  act 
“of  Parliament,”  applies  to  the  present  policy  of 
the  State,  rather  than  to  the  policy  of  Prohibition 
which  is  an  effort  to  guard  against  these  evils  bj 
dealing  with  a traffic,  not  an  appetite.  It  is  some- 
what surprising  to  find  how  often  this  objection 
has  been  advanced  for  the  perpetuation  of  the 
present  policy  of  the  State,  with  which  it  is, 
rightly  considered,  in  direct  opposition,  and  for 
tlie  defeat  of  the  very  policy  which  is  most  in  har- 
mony with  it. 


1 


DRINK  AND  DEATH. 


57 


9.  Drink  and  Death. 

The  relation  between  drink  and  mortality,  it 
has  seemed  impossible  to  ascertain  with  anything 
like  scientific  accuracy.  This  is  not  from  the 
lack  of  proper  effort,  but  is  due  to  the  nature  it- 
self of  this  relation.  Intemperance,  in  and  of 
itself,  is  very  rarely  the  immediate  cause  of  death. 
In  drinking  alcoholic  liquors,  stupefaction  almost 
always  overtakes  the  drinker  before  he  has  swal- 
lowed enough  liquor  to  kill.  Except  in  the  com- 
paratively few  cases  of  outright  alcoholism,  in- 
temperance in  drink  is  a mediate  rather  than  an 
immediate  cause  of  death.  While  the  number  of 
deaths  due  to  immediate  causes,  such  as  consump- 
tion, pneumonia,  typhoid  fever  and  the  like,  may 
be  determined  with  approximate  accuracy  from 
vital  statistics,  it  is  hardly  more  possible  to  tell, 
with  any  close  approach  to  accuracy,  from  ordin- 
ary sources  of  information,  how  many  cases  of 
death  are  due  to  intemperance  in  drink,  than  to 
tell  how  many  are  due  to  intemperance  in  eating. 
We  know  that  bad  sanitation  and  bad  ventilation 
are  causes  in  many  instances  of  death,  but  they 
are  not  immediate  causes,  and  in  consequence  do 
not  figure  on  the  death-records.  It  would  be  ob- 
viously absurd  for  one  looking  through  the  census 
reports  and  finding  that  none  of  the  deaths  enum- 
erated are  attributed  to  bad  sanitary  conditions, 
to  conclude  that  these  are  in  nowise  a cause  of 
mortality.  It  would  be  equally  absurd  to  adopt 


58 


DRINK  AND  DEATH. 


such  a course  of  reasoning  in  reference  to  intem- 
perance. 

Many  efforts  have  been  made  to  ascertain  the 
ratio  of  mortality  due  to  drink  by  comparisons 
between  the  death-rate  of  total  abstainers  and 
that  of  drinkers.  In  a paper  read  by  E.  Vivian, 
M.  A.,  before  the  British  Association  for  the  Ad- 
vancement of  Science,  in  1875,  there  was  given 
the  result  of  statistics  kept  by  the  United  King- 
dom and  General  Provident  Institution — a life  in- 
surance society.  By  keeping  total  abstainers  in  a 
class  by  themselves,  it  was  found  that  the  death- 
rate  among  them  was  considerably  less  than  that 
among  the  moderate  <lrinkers.  Similar  compari- 
son has  been  made,  with  a similar  result,  between 
the  Ancient  Order  of  United  IVorkingmen,  in 
Manchester,  England,  and  the  Order  of  Good 
Templars,  as  also  between  the  Odd  Fellows’  Asso- 
ciation and  the  Good  Templars.  But  all  these 
and  similar  comparisons,  while  they  furnish 
ground  for  a reasonable  presumption  against 
drink,  are  of  little  worth  in  furnishing  scientific 
data. 

Even  if  we  knew  the  exact  ratio  of  mortality 
among  all  the  total  abstainers  of  the  nation,  and 
that  among  all  the  drinkers,  it  would  be  altogether 
unwarranted  to  assume  that  the  difference  was 
due  solely  to  drink.  Intemperance  is  almost  in- 
variably associated  with  other  vices  or  conditions 
that  operate  as  auxiliary  causes  of  disease  and 
death.  wDUq  tPe  same  habit  of  self-restraint  which 


DRINK  AND  DEATH. 


69 


the  total  abstainer  has  cultivated  is  likely  to  oper- 
ate in  respect  to  other  indulgences  and  to  prolong 
his  life  for  reasons  aside  entirely  from  the  effects 
of  drink. 

An  investigation  has  been  made,  within  the 
last  few  years,  by  the  British  Medical  Association, 
which,  all  things  considered,  is  the  most  scientific 
and  valuable  ever  made  public  in  regard  to  this 
question.  Its  value  is  increased  by  the  fact  that 
it  was  made  by  a purely  scientific  body  in  the  in- 
terests of  no  theory  or  trade. 

The  inquiry  was  conducted  by  a special  com- 
mittee of  the  association,  from  May  9,  1885,  to 
December  11,  1886.  Each  of  the  contributors  to 
the  inquiry,  being  in  each  case  a member  of  the 
association,  was  requested  to  take  his  death-certifi- 
cate book  for  the  preceding  three  years,  and  from 
the  counterfoils  of  the  certificates  of  males  over 
twenty-five  years  of  age,  to  fill  in  the  blank  in- 
quiries sent  out  by  the  committee.  These  inquir- 
ies covered  the  following  particulars  among 
others : Occupation  during  life,  habits  in  regard  to 
alcoholic  drinks,  age  at  death,  and  the  immediate 
cause  or  causes  of  death.  Responses  were  received 
from  178  members  of  the  association,  giving  the 
desired  data  for  4,234  cases  of  death.  The  re- 
sponses were  tabulated  by  the  committee,  and  a 
full  report  of  the  inquiry  published  in  the  British 
Medical  Journal,  June  23,  1888. 

The  result  is  a curious  one,  and  forcibly  illus- 
trates what  has  been  said  about  the  fallacy  under- 


60 


DRINK  AND  DEATH. 


lying  a mere  comparison  between  the  mortality 
rate  among  abstainers  and  that  among  drinkers, 
but  in  this  case  the  fallacy  tells  against  the  ab- 
stainers. 

In  the  returns,  the  4234  cases  of  death  were 
divided,  according  to  habits  in  respect  of  drink, 
into  five  classes,  namely: 

(1)  Total  abstainers ; (2)  The  habitually  tem- 
perate drinkers  ; (3)  The  careless  drinkers,  those 
who  usually  drink  in  moderation,  but  occasion- 
ally indulge  to  excess,  (4)  The  free  drinkers, 
men  who  are  not  inebriates,  and  yet  drink  con- 
stantly “ more  than  is  good  for  them  ; ” (5)  The 
decidedly  intemperate  inebriates.  Table  ix  shows 
the  average  age  at  death  of  each  class,  from  which 
it  appears  that  the  average  age  among  total 
abstainers  was  even  lower  than  that  among  the 
decidedly  intemperate.  The  figures  given  are  as 
follows : 

Total  abstainers — average  age  at  death — 51.22  yrs. 
Habitually  temperate  “ “ “ “ — 62.13  “ 

Careless  drinkers  “ “ “ “ — 59.67  “ 

Free  drinkers  “ “ “ “ — 57.59  “ 

Decidedly  intemperate  “ “ “ “ — 52.03  “ 

This  would  seem  to  indicate  that  the  longevity 
of  total  abstainers  is  nearly  eleven  years  less  than 
that  of  the  moderate  drinkers,  and  less  than  that 
of  any  other  class,  less  even  than  that  of  the 
drunkards.  This  is  explained  by  the  Committee, 
in  part,  by  the  fact  that  “ the  class  of  total 
“•abstainers  is  somewhat  differently  constituted 


TKINK  AND  DEATH. 


61 


‘•from  any  of  the  other  classes,”  inasmuch  as  the 
“total  abstinence  movements  which  have  played  so 
“important  a part  in  this  country  [England]  of 
“ late  years  have  made  many  more  converts 
“ among  the  young  than  among  the  middle-aged 
‘or  elderly.”  But  there  is  another  fact  which 
serves  to  invalidate  not  only  the  comparison  as  it 
pertains  to'  the  total  abstainers,  but,  in  less  degree, 
as  it  pertains  to  all  the  other  classes  as  well. 

Let  a community  be  conceived  in  which  all 
males  between  the  ages  of  15  and  25  are  total 
abstainers  ; all  who  learn  to  drink  habitually,  and 
in  moderation,  begin  to  do  so  not  earlier  than  the 
age  of  25 ; all  who  learn  to  drink  freely  begin  to 
do  so  not  sooner  than  the  age  of  35 ; and  all  who 
become  habitually  intemperate  become  so  not 
sooner  than  the  age  of  45.  Now  let  a comparison 
be  instituted  between  these  different  classes,  in 
Older  to  ascertain  the  average  age  at  death  in  each 
class.  It  is  of  course  apparent  that  there  could 
not  be  a single  death  at  an  earlier  age  than  45 
chronicled  among  the  intemperate,  because  there 
were  no  intemperate  persons  less  than  45  years  of 
age.  There  would  be  no  deaths  at  an  earlier  age 
than  35  aniong  the  free  drinkers,  none  earlier  than 
25  among  the  temperate  drinkers,  while  every 
ileath  earlier  than  25  would  be  the  death  of  a 
total  abstainer.  It  is  needless  to  point  out  that 
such  a comparison  would  show  a higher  average 
age  among  the  intemperate  than  among  any  other 
class. 


62 


DRINK  AND  DEATH. 


Now  a condition  of  tilings  somewhat  similar  to 
this  supposed  condition  does  actually  exist.  As 
the  report  of  the  Committee  points  out,  the 
alcoholic  hahit  tends  to  increase  from  youth  up  to 
about  45  or  50  years  of  age.  It  follows  that  the 
average  age  of  the  class  of  total  abstainers  living 
at  any  period  would  be  much  lower  than  that  of 
the  drunkards.  Both  by  reason  of  the  fact  stated 
in  the  report  about  the  number  of  young  men  who 
are  converts  to  the  doctrine  of  total  abstinence,  and 
by  reason  of  the  presence  of  home  influences  and 
the  absence  of  that  strain  and  stress  that  drive 
many  to  the  cup  in  later  years,  the  comparison 
is  rendered  worthless  so  far  as  the  class  of  total 
abstainers  is  concerned,  and  is  so  confessed  in  the 
report.  “ We  have  not  in  these  returns,”  says 
the  Committee,  “ the  means  of  coming  to  any 
“ conclusion  as  to  the  relative  duration  of  life  of 
“ total  abstainers  and  habitually  temperate 
“ drinkers  of  alcoholic  liquors.” 

The  same  considerations  affect,  in  a less  degree, 
the  comparisons  between  other  classes.  What- 
ever inaccuracies  there  are,  however,  because  of 
this,  tell  in  favor  of  the  harder  drinkers.  The 
difference  given  (over  ten  years)  between  the 
average  age  at  death  of  the  habitually  temperate 
and  the  habitually  intemperate,  tells  therefore 
less  than  the  truth.  But  on  the  basis  of  these 
figures  we  may  assert  broadly,  that  the  report 
shows  that  those  who  become  intemperate  after 
the  age  of  twenty-five,  lose,  on  an  average,  ten 


DRINK  AND  DEATH. 


63 


fsars  out  of  the  thirty-five  that  they  otherwise 
have  to  live,  and  that  the  free  drinkers  lose  five 
years  out  of  the  thirty-five. 

But  the  report  is  of  greater  value  in  a direction 
that  seems  not  to  have  suggested  itself  at  all  to 
the  Committee.  We  have  in  it  a means  of  deter- 
mining at  last,  with  some  respectable  degree  of 
accuracy,  the  number  of  deaths  due  to  drink,  and, 
with  less  accuracy,  the  number  of  intemperate 
drinkers. 

In  the  4234  deaths  reported,  all  classes  and  con- 
ditions of  society  were  represented,  and  all  sec- 
tions of  the  country  as  well.  Now  the  total 
number  of  deaths  in  England  and  Wales,  in  1886, 
of  males  over  25  years  of  age,  was  261,066,  out  of 
a population  of  27,870,586.  The  deaths,  then,  of 
4234  males  over  25  years  of  age  in  three  years’ 
time,  would  represent  a population  of  150,000, 
which,  so  far  as  drink  is  concerned,  may  be  con- 
sidered a representative  population.  Out  of  these 
4234  deaths,  1645  were  temperate  drinkers,  1122 
were  careless  drinkers,  653  were  free  drinkers, 
and  653  were  habitually  intemperate.  If  the 
same  ratio  held  good  for  the  entire  nation,  as 
for  this  population  of  150,000,  we  should  have 
the  following  as  the  number  of  deaths  each  year 
among  these  four  different  classes  : 


Temperate  drinkers,  males  over  25,  dying  (from  all  causes) 

each  year in, 430 

Careless  drinkers,  males  over  25,  dying  (from  all  causes) 

each  year ; 09,111 

Free  drinkers,  maies  over  25,  dying  (from  all  causes)  each 

year 40,263 

Hahitually  intemperate  drinkers,  males  over  25,  dying 

(from  all  causes)  each  year 40,263 


64 


DRINK  AND  DEATH. 


To  compute  the  number  of  living  persons  in 
each  class  is  a more  difficult  matter,  but  having 
the  number  of  deaths  in  each  class  and  the  com- 
parative mortality,  we  can,  by  algebraic  formulae 
(see  Appendix,  Note  C)  compute  this  also.  The 
result  will  be,  for  the  last  two  classes  of  drinkers, 
as  follows  : 


Males  over  25,  in  England,  belonging  to  class  of  “ free 

drinkers” 903,917 

Males  over  25,  in  England,  belonging  to  class  of  “habit- 
ually intemperate  ” 759.922 


Total  hard  drinkers 1,663,839 


That  is  to  say,  out  of  a total  population  in  Eng- 
land and  Wales,  in  1886,  of  27,870,586,  there  were 
1,663,839  males  over  25  years  of  age  who  were 
accustomed  to  excessive  drinking,  to  the  point  of 
frequent  drunkenness ; and  among  these  there 
were,  from  all  causes,  80,526  deaths. 

In  these  figures  females  are  not  included.  The 
police  statistics  indicate  that  in  England  one-half 
as  much  drunkenness  is  found  among  females  as 
among  males*.  This  would  give  : 


Number  of  hard  drinkers  in  England  (male) 1,633,839 

Number  of  “ “ “ (femS'le) 831,919 

Total - 2,465,758 


The  number  of  deaths  among  these,  due  to  all 
causes,  was  (reckoning  the  same  ratio  among 
females  as  among  malesf)  about  120,000. 

So  far  we  can  go  with  some  feeling  of  approxi- 


* In  Liverpool  the  proportion  of  arrests  for  drunkenness  is4  females 
to  6 males;  in  London,  7 to  8 ; in  Manchester,  less  tliau  4 to  9. 

t This  ratio  should  in  all  probability  be  higher,  as  drink  is  more 
destructive  to  woman.  If  one  attempts  to  fix  on  any  other  ratiohow- 
ever,  it  must  be  largely  a matter  of  guess-work. 


DRINK  AND  DEATH, 


65 


mate  certainty.  The  reasons  rendering  the  Com- 
mittee’s report  unreliable  dn  other  respects  do  not 
affect  the  calculations  regarding  the  total  number 
of  deaths  of  intemperate  persons.  But  when  we 
endeavor  to  ascertain  the  proportion  of  these 
deaths  due  to  drink  itself,  we  become  involved  in 
the  inaccuracies  already  pointed  out.  If  the  com- 
parisons made  in  the  report,  between  the  mortality 
of  temperate  and  the  mortality  of  intemperate 
drinkers  were  strictly  accurate  (and  wdiatever 
error  there  is  tells  in  favor  of  the  intemperate) 
the  ratio  of  mortality  among  the  hard  drinkers 
is  one-fourth  greater  than  among  the  strictly  tem- 
perate. * This  makes  the  number  of  deaths  due 
to  drink  equal  to  one-fourth  the  total  number  of 
deaths  among  the  hard  drinkers.  As  the  total 
number  is  120,789,  the  number  of  these  due  to  ^ 
drink  is  30,197.  It  is  certain  the  number  does  not 
fall  below  this;  it  is  almost  certain  that  it  should 
fall  somewhat  above  it.  Probably  it  will  be  safe 
to  say  that  intemperance  kills  between  30,000  and 
35,000  each  year  in  England. 

What  is  of  more  interest  to  us,  however,  is  the 
number  of  deaths  due  to  intemperance  in  Amer- 
ica. If  we  take  the  number  in  England  as  a 
basis,  and  make  allowance  for  the  larger  popula- 
tion in  America,  and  the  smaller  consumption  per 

* The  average  age  of  the  two  classes,  careless  drinkers  and  inebriates, 
is  54.83  years,  or  29.83  years  after  the  25th  year,  at  which  point  the 
comparison  begins.  That  of  the  temperate  is  62.13,  or  37.13  years 
after  the  25th  year,  one-fourth  longer. 

5 


66 


DEINK  AND  DEATH. 


caput^  * we  shall  obtain  the  following  figures  for 
America : 


number  hard  drinkers  in  United  States  (male  and  female) 

over  2c  years  of  age 2,480, (KX). 

Number  of  deaths  each  year  (from  all  causes)  among  the 

above 120.000 

Number  of  these  deaths  due  directly  to  drink 30,000. 


In  the  number  here  given  of  deaths  due  to 
intemperance  (30,000)  the  deaths  are  not  included 
of  infants  and  children,  many  of  which  are  un- 
doubtedly due,  either  by  reason  of  negligence, 
cruelty,  or  transmitted  defects,  to  the  intemperance 
of  parents.  What  this  number  is  can  onl}'  be  con- 
jectured, but  there  is  no  doubt  it  is  considera- 
ble. It  is  not  improbable,  indeed,  that  the  most 
destructive  work  of  intemperance  is  among  this 
class.  Nor  is  the  number  included  of  those  who 
die  from  intemperance  before  the  age  of  25.  This 
however  is  very  inconsiderable.  It  is  not  proba- 
ble that  many,  even  if  they  form  confirmed  habits 
of  intemperance  at  an  earlier  age,  die  as  the  result 
of  those  habits  before  their  twent3-fifth  year. 

As  a result,  then,  of  the  investigations  of  the  Brit- 
ish Medical  Association,  we  may  say  that  out  of  a 
population,  in  the  United  States,  Jany.  1,  1889,  of 
sixty-five  millions,  there  toere  nearly  tivo  and  one-half 
millions  of  hard  drinkers,  one  hundred  and  twenty 
thousand  of  whom  die  each  year,  and  thiriy  thousand 
of  whom  owe  their  deaths  directly  to  intemperance. 


* By  tbe  report  of  the  Swiss  Federal  Council,  the  consumption  of  al- 
cohol in  Great  Britain  in  1880  was2,0787  gallons  jjer  caput : in  the  United 
States,  1.1329  gallons  pec  cauut. 


THE  FCOHOMICAL  KVILS  OP  DRINK. 

10.  The  Economical  Evils  of  Drink. 

The  second  class  of  evils  to  be  considered  are  the 
economical  evils.  These  are  evils  that  come  home 
to  all  classes  of  society,  but  especially  to  the  wage- 
earners.  In  fact,  on  this  class  all  the  economical 
burdens  of  society  fall  most  heavily.  The  wage- 
earner  has,  in  general,  but  one  thing  to  sell — his 
labor — and  that  he  must  sell  from  day  to  day.  If 
the  price  of  labor  is  low,  he  can  not,  except  in  a 
very  limited  degree,  hold  back  for  a rise  ; if  the 
price  of  labor  is  high,  he  can  not  sell  more  khan 
when  the  jirice  was  low.  If  the  burdens  of  taxa- 
tion on  the  landlord  are  increased,  he  can  in  part 
relieve  himself  by  shifting  the  burdens,  or  a por- 
tion of  them,  on  his  tenants  ; they  in  turn  may 
shift  all  or  a part,  if  they  are  manufacturers  or 
merchants,  on  their  customers,  who  in  their  turn 
may  shift  a portion  upon  the  help  they  employ — 
the  Avage-earner.  But  the  latter  is  not  in  a con- 
dition to  shift  his  share  of  the  burden.  He  can 
not  dictate  terms,  as  a rule,  for  he  must  sell  his 
labor  or  in  a short  time  starve,  and  he  must  buy 
the  necessaries  of  life  or  come  to  the  same  point. 
It  is  not  true  that  all  economical  burdens,  at  what- 
ever point  of  society  applied,  rest  finally  on  those 
at  the  bottom  ; the  burdens  are  always  distributed 
somewhat.  But  it  is  true  that  those  burdens  rest 
most  heavily  on  those  at  the  bottom,  on  the  wage- 
earners.  Punch’s  picture  of  the  soldier  who  fights 
for  all,  the  statesman  who  makes  lav/s  for  alb 
the  priest  who  prays  for  all,  and  the  laborer  who 


68 


THE  ECONOMICAL  EVILS  OF  DKINK. 


fay 8 for  all,  is  a naricature  of  the  truth,  but  it  is 
a caricature  of  the  truth. 

The  moral  evils  of  the  liquor  traffic  are  to  a 
large  extent  borne  by  those  who  are  to  blame  for 
them — by  the  drunkards  themselves.  But  the 
economical  evils  are,  for  the  most  part,  borne  by 
those  who  are  not  to  blame  for  them — by  those 
indeed  who  are  least  to  blame.  The  drunkard  is 
an  economical  burden  not  to  .himself,  nor  to  the 
saloon-keeper,  but  to  the  sober  and  the  indus- 
trious. If  he  fails  to  work,  he  is  a dead-weight  on 
society.  If  he  works,  it  is  likely  to  be  in  a fitful 
uncertain  manner  that  disorders  industry  and 
trade.  Especially  is  this  true  in  those  forms  of 
industry  in  which  men  work  by  twos  and  threes, 
when  the  drunkenness  of  one  means  the  enforced 
idleness  of  others. 

It  has  been  urged  at  times  that  if  all  working 
men  were  sober  the  price  of  sober  labor  would  go 
down  as  the  supply  increased.  But  such  an 
objection  is  based  on  ignorance  of  the  primary 
truths  of  social  science.  In  organized  society, 
under  normal  conditions,  all  labor  properly 
expended  creates  more  value  than  it  consumes. 
Were  it  not  for  this,  industry  would  prove  a curse 
^ to  a community,  and  the  more  industrious  a com- 
munity the  more  poverty-stricken  it  would  become. 
On  the  contrary,  in  any  industrious  community 
wealth  accumulates,  and  as  it  accumulates  the 
demand  for  labor  increases,  for  two  reasons: 
namely,  first,  because  b}’  the  accumulation  of 


THE  ECONOMICAL  EVILS  OP  DRINK. 


69 


w^ealtli  labor  can  be  applied  to  better  advantage, 
and  so  as  to  produce  more  valuable  results  ; and, 
second,  because  human  nature  is  so  constituted 
that  the  more  its  wants  are  supplied  the  more  rap- 
idly they  increase.  The  family  that  want  this 
year  nothing  but  a log  cabin  to  shelter  them,  when 
they  get  that,  begin  to  want  a dozen  of  things  to 
make  it  comfortable  and  attractive — beds,  chairs, 
tables,  kitchen  utensils,  fuel,  carpets.  So  in  a 
community  of  families,  the  creation  of  wealth  adds 
steadily  to  the  number  of  wants  and  the  demand 
for  labor.  Civilization  has  a thousand  times  as 
many  calls  for  labor  as  barbarism. 

If,  therefore,  in  a community  of  one  hundred 
families,  fifty  sober  men  work  and  fifty  drunken 
men  idle,  the  demand  for  labor  next  year  will  not 
be  as  great  as  it  would  have  been  had  all  one  hun- 
dred labored  this  year.  Each  of  the  sober  fifty 
bears  a heavier  burden  because  of  the  drunken 
fifty. 

So  far,  then,  from  the  value  of  sober  labor’s  being 
increased  by  drunkenness,  the  reverse  is  true,  and 
not  only  for  the  reason  just  given,  but  for  another 
reason  equally  apparent.  The  drunkard  cheapem 
the  labor  marhet  in  the  same  way  that  the  dealer 
who  sells  books  below  cost  cheapens  and  demoral- 
izes the  book  market.  The  drunkard  is  ready  to 
sell,  not  only  his  own  labor,  but  that  of  his  wife 
and  children,  at  less  than  the  real  market  value. 
The  result  is  an  irruption  of  woman-labor  and 
child-labor  at  whatever  price  employers  will  pay. 


70 


THE  ECONOMICAL  EVILS  OF  DRINK. 


While  we  are  trying  to  bar  out  cheap  labor  from 
abroad,  the  saloon  is  steadly  cheapening  labor  at 
home. 

In  attempting  to  reckon,  in  dollars  and  cents,  the 
economical  loss  involved  in  a harmless  luxury, 
such,  for  instance,  as  the  use  of  jewelry,  two  val- 
ues must  be  considered : (1)  The  intrinsic  value  of 
the  material  used ; (2)  the  value  of  the  labor  ex- 
pended upon  it.  The  diamond  pin,  for  instance, 
represents  (i)  a withdrawal  from  useful  purposes 
of  the  diamonds  and  the  gold ; and  (2)  a with- 
drawal from  useful  purposes  of  all  the  labor  that 
has  been  expended  upon  the  pin.  In  these  two 
values  lies  the  economical  loss  involved  in  the  pin, 
no  matter  whether  its  cost  to  the  wearer  was  8100, 
or  81000.  But  in  the  case  of  harmful  luxuries, 
there  is  another  cost  to  be  considered — the  cost  of 
damages. 

In  reckoning  the  cost  to  society  of  drink,  three 
values  must  be  considered : (1)  The  value  of  the 
materials  used,  such  as  grain  and  hops  ; (2)  the 

value  of  the  labor  that  has  been  expended  in  pro- 
ducing the  drink  and  marketing  it  ; (3)  the 
value  of  whatever  is  destroyed  or  impaired  by  the 
drink,  including  loss  of  life,  loss  of  work -power, 
expense  involved  in  the  arrest,  trial,  and  punish- 
ment for  crime,  the  care  of  paupers,  insane, 
feeble-minded,  and  inebriates. 

The  first  and  second  of  these  values  can  be 
readily  computed.  It  is.  for  all  practical  purposes, 
equivalent  to  the  drink-bill  of  the  nation,  less  the 


THE  ECONOMICAL  EVILS  OF  DRINK. 


71 


taxes  and  fees  paid  out  by  the  trafQc  into  the 
public  treasury.  Suppose  that  $700,000,000  is 
the  sum  paid  each  year  for  drink  in  this  country. 
Not  a dollar  of  this  sum,  it  may  be,  will  be  lost  to 
the  nation  ; but  the  labor  and  the  material  used 
in  making  and  marketing  the  liquor  for  which 
this  sum  was  expended,  are  lost  to  the  nation.  The 
value  of  that  material  and  labor  is  represented  by 
the  $700,000,000  after  the  taxes  and  license  fees 
are  deducted..  • 

Suppose,  by  way  of  illustration,  that  this  nation 
withdraws  from  other  forms  of  industry  500,000, 
men,  and  sends  them  to  labor  for  one  year  in  the 
construction  of  the  Nicaragua  canal.  Let  $700,- 
000,000  be  the  sum  paid  them  for  their  labor, 
their  transportation,  the  cost  of  machinery,  and 
all  their  appliances.  And  suppose,  further,  that 
in  one  way  or  another  every  dollar  of  this  sum  is 
by  the  end  of  the  year  returned  again  to  the  nation, 
either  in  exchange  for  provisions  purchased,  or  in 
bank  deposits,  or  in  some  other  form.  The  nation 
would  not  have  lost  a single  dollar  of  the  $700,- 
000,000,  but  it  would  have  lost  the  equivalent  of 
that  sum,  in  the  necessaries,  comforts,  and  luxuries 
supplied  to  these  men.  If  the  work  they  have  in 
the  meantime  performed  has  created  a canal  whose 
value  is  $700,000,000,  the  nation  has  lost  noth- 
ing but  interest.  If  the  work  has  proved  value- 
less, the  loss  has  been  $700,000,000  plus  the 
interest.  If  the  work  has  proved  to  be  positively 
<testrucuve,  tne  amo'cint  ot  value  destroyed  must 


72 


THE  economical  EVILS  OF  DEINK. 


be  added  to  the  $700,000,000  to  ascertain  tDe 
full  extent  of  the  loss. 

It  has  been  estimated  that  500,000  men  are,  in 
one  way  or  other,  engaged  in  this  country  iu  the 
making  and  marketing  of  liquor,  and  that  $700,- 
000,000  is  the  sum  paid  to  them  by  the  consumers. 
Not  a dollar  of  this  sum,  it  may  be,  is  lost  ; but 
the  equivalent  is  lost,  and,  in  addition,  all  the  dam- 
age entailed  is  so  much  of  a loss. 

An  estimate  made  in  1886  by  Mr.  Barrett,  at 
the  request  of  the  Bureau  of  Statistics  at  Wash- 
ington, and  published  in  the  Report  of  the  Bureau, 
December,  1886,  places  the  sum  paid  for  liquor  by 
the  consumers  of  the  nation  at  $700,000,000  a 
year.  About  the  same  time,  and  independently 
of  Mr.  Barrett's  estimate,  Edward  Atkinson  had 
figured  out  about  the  same  result.*  Others  have 
estimated  the  drink-bill  at  a much  higher  figure,  but 
none  that  the  writer  knows  of  has  placed 
the  figures  lower.  From  this  sum  should  be 
deducted  the  aggregate  taxes  and  license  fees 
paid  by  the  traffic,  under  Federal,  State  or  Muni- 
cipal laws.  The  total  receipts  to  the  Federal 
Government  during  the  year  ending  June  30, 
1888,  (see  Report  of  Internal  Revenue  Dept,  for 
that  year)  amounted  to  $69,306,166.41  on  distilled 
liquors,  and  $23,324,218.48  on  fermented  liquors 
— a total  of  $92,630,384.89.  From  this  is  to  be 

* Tliis  estimate  of  Mr.  Barrett’s  lias  Been  assailed  by  Mr.  Thomann, 
of  the  U.  S.  Brewers’  Association,  but  the  only  point  he  makes,  of  seri- 
ous moment,  is  that  from  this  sura,  8700,000,000,  sJiould  be  deducted  the 
taxes  and  fees  paid  into  the  public  treasury  by  the  traffic,  in  esti- 
mating the  loss  to  the  nation. 


THE  ECONOMICAL  EVILS  OF  DRINK. 


73 


deducted  the  cost  of  collecting,  which  would 
reduce  the  sum  to  about  $91,000,000.  During  the 
same  year  there  were  176,748  retail  and  7,185 
wholesale  dealers  according  to  the  report  of  the 
Internal  Revenue  Department.  If  we  take  $200 
as  the  average  license  fee,  the  aggregate  fees 
amounted  to  $36,800,000.*  From  this  are  to  be 
deducted  the  costs  of  excise  boards  or  collectors, 
bringing  the  sum  down  certainly  as  low  as  $33,- 
000,000.  This  makes  a total  of  $124,000,000  to 
be  deducted  from  $700,000,000,  leaving  $576,- 
000,000  as  the  approximate  direct  cost  each  year 
of  the  liquor  traffic, — about  $9.00  per  caput,  or 
$45.00  per  family. 

In  addition  must  be  considered  the  cost  of  dam- 
ages inflicted  by  the  traffic,  in  the  way  of  crimes 
engendered,  work-power  lost,  etc.  The  first  item 
under  this  head  will  be  the  loss  of  30,000  lives, 
not  counting  the  infants  and  children  whose  deaths 
are  due  to  intemperance  of  parents.  If  each  of  these 
lives  be  reckoned  at  an  industrial  value  of  $1000 
(not  an  unusual  price  paid  for  an  able-bodied  slave 
before  the  war)  we  have  $30,000,000  as  the 
amount  of  this  item.  (Here  it  may  be  urged  that 
the  death  of  a drunkard,  so  far  from  being  an 
industrial  loss,  is  a positive  gain.  That  is  so ; but 
the  fact  of  his  being  a drunkard  instead  of  an  able- 
bodied  man,  is  due  to  drink,  and  his  hidustrial 

* Since  writing  this,  the  writer  finds  that  Mr.  Thomann  also  esti- 
mates $200  as  the  average  license  fee,  in  his  pampiilet  : ‘‘Tlie  Nation’s 
Drink-biil  Economically  Considered.”  p.  18.  No  exact  estimate  is  pos- 
sible. License  fees  range  from  $30  to  $1000  m different  parts  of  the 
country. 


74 


THE  ECONOMICAL  EVILS  OF  DEINK. 


value,  not  as  he  was  just  prior  to  death,  but  as  he 
would  have  been  but  for  drink,  is  the  value  to  be 
considered.)  Another  item  is  the  loss  of  produc- 
tive power  on  the  part  of  2,500,000  intemperate 
drinkers.  A large  proportion  of  these  consist  of 
persons  who  have  never  learned  any  trade  or  pro- 
fession, and  whose  labor,  being  unskilled,  is  not  so 
much  impaired  by  drink.  Another  large  propor- 
tion consists  of  those  who  would,  under  any  cir- 
cumstances, either  with  or  without  drink,  be  idlers 
and  vagabonds.  On  the  other  hand,  the  loss  of  a 
daj^s’  work  will  in  many  cases,  where  men  work  in 
twos  or  threes,  as  in  iron  mills  and  in  mines,  cause 
the  loss  of  work  on  the  part  of  others.  Altogether 
a loss  ofi  ten  per  cent,  in  the  productive  capacity 
of  these  2,500,000  hard  drinkers,  as  due  to  drink, 
seems  to  be  a very  moderate  estimate.*  Counting 
three  hundred  working  days  to  the  year  at  an 
average  of  f 1.50  per  day,  one-tenth  of  the  produc- 
tive capacity  of  2,500,000  adults  would  be  $112,- 
500,000,  as  another  loss  due  to  drink. 


* In  the  report  of  the  Secretary  of  the  Board  of  State  Charities  of 
Massachusetts  for  1868  (Pub.  Doc.  17  p.  84),  testimony  is  cited  from  a 
large  manufacturing  house  in  North  Easton,  Mass.,'  namely  Oliver 
Ames  & Son,  to  the  following  effect: 

“ We  have  over  400  men  in  our  works  here.  We  find  that  the  present 
license  law  has  a very  bad  effect  among  our  employees.  We  find  on 
comparing  our  production  in  May  and  June  of  this  year  (18(18)  with 
thatof  the  corresponding  months  of  last  year  (1867)  that  in  1867.  with 
375  men  we  produced  (8)  eight  per  cent,  more  goods  than  we  did  in 
the  same  months  in  1868  with  400  men.  We  attribute  this  falling  off 
entirely  to  the  repeal  of  tlie  prohibitory  law  and  the  great  increase 
in  the  use  of  iutoxicatiiig  liquors  among  our  men  in  consequence.” 
In  a report  made  by  the  Commi.ssiou  appointed  by  the  Canadian 
Government  in  1874  “to  inquire  into  the  working  of  the  prohibitory 
“ liquor  law”  in  the  United  States,  “the  following  testimony  is  given 
(p.  65)  from  H.  Wilson,  woollen  manufacturer  of  Southboro,  Jfass; 
During  1868,  the  year  the  license  law  was  in  force,  our  cost  of  pro- 
duction was  nearly  lO  per  cent.  more.  I employed  about  150  men 
and  the  drinking  by  some  of  them  interfered  with  all,  and  diminish- 
ed production,  but  not  cost.” 


THE  ECONOMICAL  EVILS  OF  DRINK. 


75 


Another  considerable  item  is  the  cost  of  crimes 
due  to  drink,  the'  care  of  the  paupers  and  demented 
whose  condition  is  due  to  drink,  and  the  damages 
by  fire,  by  rail,  by  boat,  and  in  other  ways,  due  to 
drunken  carelessness  or  recklessness.  By  the 
additions  made  in  the  items  already  reckoned  the 
direct  cost  1576,000,000,  has  been  increased  to 
$718,500,000.  What  this  last  item  would  amount 
to  it  is  impossible  to  tell.  But  it  is  reasonably 
certain  it  would  bring  the  sum  total  somewhere 
between  eight  and  nine  hundred  millions  of  dollars 
as  the  yearly  cost,  direct  and  indirect,  of  drink.* 
There  are  many  who  will  assail  this  estimate  as 
far  too  low.  Other  estimates  have  been  made 
that  placed  the  cost  of  drink  more  than  twice  as 
high.  But  this  has  been  done  by  counting  in  not 
only  the  actual  money  expended  for  drink,  but, 
beside,  the  value  of  the  labor  and  material  used 
in  the  various  forms  of  the  traffic, — thus  just 
doubling  the  proper  figures.  Frequently,  too,  the 
number  of  lives  lost  by  drink  is  placed  from 
60,000  to  100,000,  for  which  the  writer  is  unable 
to  find  any  but  the  most  flimsy  basis.  From  the 
nature  of  the  case,  no  estimate  can  be  exact.  The 
most  that  can  be  done  is  to  give  a general  idea  of 
the  magnitude  of  the  evil.  The  endeavor  has  been, 

* In  a work  on  “Oiir  Pena!  Machinery  and  its  Victims.”  by  J.  P. 
Altgeld,  of  Chicago,  in  1884  it  was  estimated  that  tiie  total  arrests  for 
all  causes  number  in  the  nation  2 500.000  each  year : that  the  cost  of 
police  is  on  an  average  $24.00  to  each  arrest : that  tlie  cost  of  tlie  50 
large  penitentiaries,  tlie  2200  jails,  and  numerous  police  prisons,  is  at 
least  $400,000,000,  interest  on  which  at  five  per  cent,  would  be  $20,000,- 
000.  Then  there  is,  in  addition,  tlie  cost  of  keeping  prisoners  over  and 
above  the  value  of  the  work  they  perforin. 


76  POLITICAL  EVILS  DUE  TO  THE  SALOOH. 

in  tlie  preceding  pages,  not  to  see  how  large  the 
figures  could  be  made,  but  to  keep  the  estimates 
within  those  limits  in  which  we  have  satisfactory 
data  for  our  guidance. 

1 1 . Political  Evils  Due  to  the  Saloon. 

The  third  form  of  evil  attendant  on  the  drink 
traffic,  is  the  political  evil. 

The  saloon  as  a factor  in  politics  has,  of  late 
years,  drawn  to  it  the  attention  of  the  nation. 
Whether  it  he  true  that  the  influence  of  the 
saloon-keeper  is,  as  Judge  Rhone  thinks,  “im- 
“ mensely  overated,”  is  not  the  question  of  greatest 
importance.  The  influence  of  the  saloon,  rather 
than  the  influence  of  the  saloon-keeper,  is  the 
cause  of  grave  concern.  The  influence  of  the 
saloons  of  the  land  is  no  more  to  be  measured  by 
that  of  the  men  who  conduct  them  than  the  influ- 
ence of  the  common  schools  of  the  land  is  to  be 
measured  by  that  of  the  teachers  employed  in 
them.  The  bar  rather  than  the  barkeeper  is  the 
source  of  degradation,  and  if  every  saloon-keeper 
emigrated  or  died  to-morrow,  and  the  saloons  con- 
tinued, there  would  be  but  a slight  and  temporary 
change  for  the  better.  It  is  true  the  liquor-deal- 
ers, through  the  organizations — local,  state,  and 
national — which  they  have  formed,  and  the 
immense  capital  which  they  have  accumulated, 
have  developed  political  power  dangerous  to  con- 
template. But  the  chief  source  of  that  power  is 
not,  after  all,  in  their  organizations,  nor  in  their 


POLITICAL  EVILS  DUE  TO  THE  SALOON.  77 


^apital,  nor  in  their  personal  ability  ; but  it  lies  in 
the  saloons  which  they  control,  and  through  which 
they  operate  to  such  tremendous  advantage. 
Whatever  purchasable  vote  there  may  be,  is  almost 
sure  to  be  within  reach  of  the  saloon-keeper.  If 
each  saloon  of  New  York  State  can  reach  and  con- 
trol ten  votes  on  an  average,  the  united  strength 
of  the  35,000  saloons  is  one-fourth  of  the  vote  of 
the  State. 

Nor  is  this  one  of  the  mere  might-be  evils  which 
sometimes  give  needless  nightmares  to  reformers. 
The  power  is  one  which  is  exercised  already,  not 
indeed  as  a unified  force,  but  sufficiently  to  deter- 
mine important  elections.  In  the  last  election 
(1888)  the  Democratic  candidate  for  President, 
with  the  Independent  vote  largely  in  his  favor, 
polled  in  New  York  State  635,757  votes.  The 
vote  polled  the  same  day  for  the  Democratic 
candidate  for  Governor,  though  the  Independent 
vote  was  almost  solidly  cast  against  him,  was 
650,464.  The  former  was  defeated  by  13,000 
plurality,  the  latter  elected  by  19,000  plurality. 
The  difference,  it  is  generally  conceded,  was 
brought  about  by  the  liquor  dealers,  who  be- 
lieved the  re-election  of  the  Democratic  candi- 
date for  Governor  was  important  for  their  interests. 

If,  as  is  probable,  15,000  of  the  votes  cast 
for  the  Democratic  candidate  for  President  were 
cast  against  the  Democratic  candidate  for  Gov- 
ernor, then  there  must  have  been  at  least  30,000 
who  cast  their  votes  for  the  Republican  candidate 


78  POLITICAL  EVILS  DUE  TO  THE  SALOON. 

for  President,  who  were  swung  over  the  same 
day  to  the  support  of  the  Democratic  candidate 
for  Governor.  A study  of  the  returns  shows  that 
this  transference  took  place  chiefly  in  the  cities, 
confirming  the  general  opinion  that  it  was  effected 
hy  the  liquor  dealer’s.  A similar  swing  in  the 
other  direction  was  witnessed  in  1883,  when  the 
Republican  candidate  for  Secretary  ofi  State  in 
New  York  was  regarded  by  the  liquor  dealers  with 
special  favor,  and  the  Democratic  candidate  was 
regarded  with  special  disfavor.  The  former  was 
elected  by  18,583  plurality,  while  every  other 
candidate  on  the  same  ticket  was  defeated  by  plu- 
ralities ranging  from  13,630  to  17,568. 

These  are  instances  of  what  has  appeared  in  the 
more  general  elections.  But  it  is  in  the  less  con- 
spicuous elections  that  the  saloon  plays  the  most 
important  part.  In  the  elections  for  the  Legisla- 
ture, county  and  municipal  offices,  the  saloon  is,  in 
the  centres  of  population,  too  often  the  dominant 
force.  It  is  here  that  it  plays  its  most  dangerous 
because  least  conspicuous  role.  The  politicians 
whom  it  breeds  are,  as  a rule,  men  whose  ambi- 
tions are  directed  to  local  offices,  and  whose  only 
interest  in  the  general  election.s  is  in  the  occasion 
they  present  for  “ deals.”  The  notorious  Board  of 
“ Boodle  ” Aldermen  in  power  in  New  York  city 
in  1884,  contained  twelve  liquor  dealers,  or  ex- 
dealers, out  of  a total  membership  of  twenty -four, 
and  the  Board  that  succeeded  to  power  was  simi- 
larly constituted.  With  the  right  vested,  as  it 


POLITICAL  EVILS  DUE  TO  THE  SALUON.  79 

was  at  that  time,  in  the  Board  to  confirm  or  reject 
all  the  Mayor’s  appointments  to  office,  it  will  be 
seen  what  such  power  meant  to  the  city  of  New 
York.  Out  of  1002  primaries  and  nominating 
conventions  held  in  New  York  in  1881  by  the  two 
leading  parties,  683  were  held  in  saloons,  and  96 
in  rooms  adjacent  to  saloons.  (New  York  City 
and  its  Masters,  p.  38.)  In  1887  the  County 
Committee  of  one  of  the  two  leading  parties  in 
New  York,  and  that  the  one  considered  less  amen- 
able to  saloon  influences,  contained  fifty-three 
liquor  dealers,  or  ex-dealers,  the  ratio  of  liquor 
dealers  being  larger  than  that  of  any  other  pro- 
fession or  trade.  Similar  instances  might  be  given 
showing  much  the  same  condition  of  things 
in  Brooklyn,  Boston,  Cincinnati,  Chicago,  St. 
Louis,  Omaha,  Baltimore,  San  Francisco,  and 
other  large  cities  of  the  Union,  in  all  of  which  it 
is  true,  to  greater  or  less  degree,  that,  as  Mr.  Hal- 
stead said  of  Cincinnati,  “ every  saloon  is  a politi- 
“ cal  club  house.”  “ Long  ago,”  said  George 
Frederic  Parsons  in  The  Atlantic  Monthly,  two 
years  since,  “ the  saloon  abolished  party  politics  in 
“ our  largest  cities.  To-day,  in  every  such  city, 
“ the  local  government  is  vested  in  neither  party, 
“ but  is  in  the  hands  of  the  saloon  itself.  Nom- 
“ inally,  the  government  may  be  Democratic  or 
“ Republican.  Actually,  it  is  in  commis.sion  by  a 
“ band  of  venal  politicians,  who  have  no  convic- 
“ tions  or  principles,  who  trade  and  swap  oppor- 
“tuuities  for  plunder  with  one  another,  who  act 


»0  POLITICAL  EVILS  DUE  TO  THE  SALOON. 


“ as  agents  fo-r  the  so-called  party  leaders,  but  who 
“ acknowledge  allegiance  only  to  the  saloon.” 

As  a result  of  this  political  prominence  of  the 
saloon,  is  seen  the  municipal  misrule  which  is  gen- 
erally recognized  by  statesmen  at  home  and 
abroad,  as  the  most  glaring  defect  of  American 
Government,  and  the  most  ominous  danger  to  its 
perpetuity.  “ There  is  no  denying,”  says  Prof. 
Bryce  in  his  new  and  valuable  work  “ The  Amer- 
ican Commonwealth,”  “ that  the  government  of 
“ cities  is  the  one  conspicuous  failure  of  the  United 
“ States.”  Yet  municipal  government  has  come  to 
be  the  most  important  part  of  American  Govern- 
ment. The  massing  of  our  population  in  the 
large  cities  has  been  going  on  in  steadily  increas- 
ing proportions,  until  now  more  than  one  fifth  of 
the  population  of  the  United  States  is  contained 
in  the  fifty  largest  cities.  Not  only  the  balance 
of  poAver  but  the  power  itself,  politically  and 
financially,  has  been  fast  coming  to  these  great 
nerve-centres  of  the  nation,  where  social  customs 
are  set,  public  sentiment  moulded,  and  the  lines  of 
industrial  and  commercial  activity  determined. 
Rottenness  here  is  rottenness  at  the  core.  De 
Tocqueville  forty  years  ago  pointed  out  our  dan- 
ger through  municipal  misrule  ; Beaconsfield  and 
Macaulay  haA^e  emphasized  it  since.  It  is  in  the 
large  cities  that  the  saloon  is  strongest  and  most 
defiant.  It  is  here  that  its  mastery  in  politics  is 
most  complete  and  most  offensive  t and  it  is  here 
also  that  the  Church  and  the  influences  Avhich 


POLITICAL  EVILS  DUE  TO  THE  SALOON.  81 

make  for  morality  are  relatively  the  weakest.  The 
sober  truth  is,  the  saloon  has  seized  upon  the 
strategic  points  of  American  civilization— the 
cities — and,  in  so  far  as  local  government  is  con 
cerned,  it  has  obtained  a grip  that  only  the  stern- 
est measures  can  break. 

There  have  been,  during  the  last  half-century, 
several  outbreaks  of  public  sentiment  awakened 
by  the  rapid  increase  of  our  foreign  population. 
Unfortunately,  these  outbreaks  have  seemed  to  be 
directed  against  persons  rather  than  against  ideas 
or  influences.  The  cry  has  been,  “ America  for 
Americans,”  rather  than,  America  for  American 
ideas  and  institutions.  The  distinction  is  one 
with  a difference.  There  are  legions  of  foreign- 
born  citizens  who  are  to-day  Americans  in  all  that 
that  word  implies.  In  many  cases  their  love  for 
this  country  and  its  institutions  is  more  intelligent 
and  more  appreciative  from  the  very  fact  of  their 
birth  under  other  skies.  The  danger  lies  not  with 
the  foreign-born  citizen  so  much  as  with  tlie  for- 
eign-born ideas,  customs,  and  standards  to  which 
too  often  he  persists  in  clinging. 

It  is  a duty  that  is  owed  not  to  the  native-born 
American  alone,  but  equally  to  the  foreign-born, 
that  those  influences  which  have  hitherto  made 
this  land  an  asylum  for  all  peoples  should  con- 
tinue to  dominate  in  the  future  development  of 
the  nation.  “We  are  placed  at  the  head  of  rep- 
“resentative  and  popular  governments,”  said 
Webster  in  his  Bunker  Hill  oration.  “We  shall 
6 


82  POLITICAL  EVILS  DUE  TO  THE  SALOOH. 

“ be  recreant  to  the  duty  of  that  headship  if  we 
“ permit  the  fundamental  conditions  of  national 
“ repose,  of  the  security  of  personal  rights,  of  good 
“ laws,  and  of  just  administration  to  be  imperilled 
“ by  the  ignorant,  lawless,  idle,  and  dangerous 
“overflow  of  all  other  countries.  We  are  the 
“ occupants  and  guardians  of  this  country, 
“ and  with  a kindly  heart  and  hospitable  hand 
“ toward  all  the  world,  we  must  prescribe  the 
“ conditions  upon  which  the  world  shall  come 
“ here.” 

Closing  the  ports,  however,  on  those  whose  only 
olfence  has  been  birth  in  a foreign  land,  so  far 
from  being  a blow  struck  for  American  ideas,  is  a 
direct  blow  at  one  of  the  most  cherished  of  those 
ideas,  and  one  which  has  done  much  to  keep  the 
patriotic  pride  of  the  nation  alive.  Such  a meas- 
ure could  be  justified  by  the  direst  necessit}' alone, 
and  after  all  other  measures  had  proved  futile. 
No  reference  is  intended  in  this  to  the  laws 
against  imported  paupers  and  criminals,  nor  to  the 
intent  of  the  law  against  contract  labor.  It  is  not 
the  man  that  is  brought  here,  but  the  one  who  of 
his'  own  will,  aspiring  for  better  things  for  himself 
or  his  children,  with  thrift  enough  to  pay  for  his 
passage  and  courage  enough  to  brave  the  hard- 
ships of  the  new  life — to  withdraw  from  such  an 
one  our  welcome  would  mark  a grave  departure 
from  the  spirit  of  American  history.  There  has 
been,  of  course,  a great  deal  of  sj)read-eag]e  ora- 
tory that  counted  for  very  little  about  our  coun- 


POLITICAL  EVILS  DtJE  TO  VUE  SALOOIT. 


83 


try  as  the  asylum  for  the  oppressed  of  all  lands. 
But  below  all  the  buncombe  and  braggadocio, 
there  has  been  a deep-seated  pride  in  the  fact  and 
a glorying  in  it  that  has  stimulated  the  patriotism 
of  the  nation  to  a wonderful  degree. 

And  yet,  while  appreciating  this  to  the  full,  one 
must  not  fail  to  recognize  the  pei’ils  that  have 
come  with  the  foreignizing  tendencies  of  the  last 
two  decades.  The  advance  of  science  has  in  the 
last  forty  years  annihilated  ten  out  of  every  twelve 
miles  that  separate  us  from  the  old  world.  It  is 
as  if  our  continent  had  been  taken  up  in  the  hand 
of  Omnipotence  and  placed  within  one-sixth  of  its 
former  distance  from  the  nations  of  Europe.  The 
change  has  brought  to  us  wonderful  development 
and  marvelous  wealth,  but  it  has  brought  its  dan- 
gers as  well.  The  number  of  immigrants  reach- 
ing our  ports  in  the  last  twenty  years  has  exceeded 
the  sum  total  of  immigration  during  the  entire 
previous  history  of  our  nation.  One  thousand 
and  five  hundred  a day  has  been  about  the  aver- 
age for  the  last  ten  years,  and  the  massing  of  these 
in  the  large  cities  has  greatly  complicated  the 
problems  arising.  “ When  an  Irishman,  a Ger- 
“ man,  a Frenchman,  lands  at  Castle  Garden,” 
says  Sam  Small,  “ then  and  there  an  Irishman,  a 
“ German,  or  a Frenchman  ought  to  die,  and  an 
“ American  be  born.”  But  unfortunately  such  a 
transformation  is  becoming  more  and  more  rare. 
We  have  the  German  vote  and  the  Irish  vote.  In 
each  of  the  large  cities  there  is  the  German  quar- 


84  POLITICAL  EVILS  DUE  TO  THE  SALOON’. 

ter,  the  Irish  quarter,  the  Italian  quarter. 
Natural  enough,  of  course,  but  dangerous 
enough  too.  It  is  perhaps  not  too  much  to  say 
that  the  central  question  of  our  social  and  politi- 
cal future  for  years  to  come  will  be  this  : 

Shall  America  Americanize  this  vast  For- 
eign Element,  or  be  Foreignized  by  it? 

The  bearing  which  the  saloon  has  upon  this 
question  is  immediate  and  important,  and  more  so 
in  a political  than  any  other  sense.  Itself  an  im- 
ported institution,  the  saloon  has  become  the  ful- 
crum by  means  of  which  the  worst  of  the  foreign- 
izing  tendencies  work  their  changes  on  law  and 
Government.  It  is  linked  in  an  alliance  with  the 
house  of  prostitution,  which  is  already  seeking 
and  finding  legalization  in  the  form  of  license  laws. 
More  than  any  other  one  factor,  the  saloon  has 
broken  down  the  American  Sabbath  and  ushered 
in  the  Continental  Sunday,  disdaining  in  most 
cases  even  to  change  the  law,  but  accomplishing 
its  work  in  spite  of  the  law.  * It  is  in  the  saloon 
that  Anarchism  finds  a rendezvous  and  an  inspira- 
tion, and  the  red  flag  has  never  floated  to  the 
American  breeze  except  from  an  American  saloon. 

But  above  and  beyond  all,  the  saloon  has  organ- 
ized and  in  a large  part  created  a purchasable  vote 
whose  proportions  have  alarmed  even  American 


* Out  of  M41  applicants  to  the  License  Court  of  Philadelphia,  in  1838, 
for  saloon  licenses,  3000  were  reported  by  the  police  as  violators  of  the 
Sunday  law. 


POLITICAL  EVILS  DUE  TO  THE  SALOON.  85 


optimism.  If  “ every  saloon  is  a political  club- 
“ house,”  the  education  given  in  it  is  an  education 
in  political  corruption.  As  a rule,  every  habitual 
drunkard  added  to  society  is  an  addition  of  one  to 
the  purchasable  vote.  Said  John  B.  Finch  in  his 
impassioned  way : 

“ There  stands  a workman  ; he  does  not  drink ; 
he  has  money  in  his  pocket ; he  has  a good  job  ; 
his  brain  is  clear  ; his  wife  and  family  are  happy. 
For  the  first  time  he  goes  to  a drinking  place 
and  drinks.  Daring  four  or  five  years  he  goes 
down  and  down,  and  by  and  by  he  gets  reck- 
less, loses  his  business,  and  his  family  have  to 
beg.  He  is  an  outcast  on  the  street.  On  an 
election  morning  this  man  stands  on  a street 
corner,'  ragged,  dirty,  sick  ; craving  for  something 
to  drink,  such  a craving  for  the  poison  that  he 
would  sell  his  soul  for  a drink  of  liquor.  The 
only  thing  that  man  possesses  which  will  bring 
money  is  his  vote.  Do  you  suppose  that  man, 
with  morals  gone,  reputation  gone,  starving, 
ragged,  and  hungry,  will  vote  like  an  American 
citizen,  according  to  his  convictions,  if  he  can 
get  money  for  voting  otherwise  ? ” — (^The  People 
vs  The  Liquor  Traffic,  p.  58.) 

It  is  in  the  saloon,  and  under  its  corrupting  influ- 
ences, that  the  immigrant,  as  a rule,  learns  his  first 
lessons  in  American  politics.  Within  a radius  of 
one-half  mile  from  Castle  Garden  four  hundred 
saloons  are  located,  and  up  to  a very  recent  date 
there  was  not  in  that  distance  a lodging  house  or 


86  POLITICAL  EVILS  DUE  TO  THE  SALOON. 

restaurant  without  a bar  attached.  Who  is  to 
blame  if  political  corruption,  as  a lucrative  busi- 
ness and  a speedy  Channel  to  official  power,  is 
learned  by  the  immigrant  too  well  ever  to  be  un- 
learned ? In  the  city  of  Philadelphia,  in  1888, 
the  License  Court  began  a system  of  inquiry  into 
the  nationality  of  the  applicants  for  license.  It 
was  found  that  nine  out  of  ten  were  of  foreign 
birth,  and  a large  percentage  were  still  unnatural- 
ized. A similar  condition  of  things  doubtless  ex- 
ists in  other  large  cities,  and  in  some  of  them, 
probably,  the  proportion  of  foreign-born  saloon- 
beepers  is  larger  still.  George  Frederic  Parsons, 
in  the  article  in  “ The  Atlantic  Monthly  ” already 
quoted,  writes: 

The  foreigner  who  lands  in  this  countr;^  obtains 
his  first  ideas  of  its  governmental  system  from 
the  saloon.  There  he  is  introduced  to  the  low* 
est  intrigues  of  factional  conflict.  There  he  is 
taught  that  the  chief  end  and  aim  of  politics  is 
to  make  as  much  as  possible  for  the  ‘workers’. 
There  he  is  enlisted  into  one  or  other  of  the 
great  organizations  which  have  reduced  party 
politics  to  periodical  battles  for  plunder,  to 
contests  for  the  opportunity  to  misgovern. 
There  he  learns  that  honor  and  principle  are 
simply  ‘ molasses  to  catch  flies,’  as  a notorious 
politician  once  expressed  it.  There  he  is  made 
to  understand  that  he  is  not  expected  to  think 
for  himself,  but  tliat  he  must  obey  implicitly  the 
party  mandates,  reverence  the  saloon-keepers  of 


POLITICAL  EVILS  DUE  TO  THE  SALOON.  87 


his  ward,  submit  himself  humbly  to  his  ‘ boss,’ 
and  on  election  day  be  thankful  that  he  can  sell 
his  vote  for  a couple  of  dollars  or  a debauch  on 
bad  whiskey.  This  is  no  fanciful  picture. 
There  is  no  considerable  city  in  the  United 
States  in  which  purchased  votes  are  not  cast  by 
the  thousand  at  every  important  election,  and 
these  votes  are  almost  invariably  bought  and 
paid  for  in  the  saloon.” 

It  is,  after  all,  in  this  aspect  of  the  saloon,  as  a 
creator  and  a rallying  point  of  corrupt  forces  in 
politics,  that  we  have  most  to  fear.  It  is  this  that 
makes  the  saloon  a barrier  to  every  reform  that 
must  appeal  to  the  integrity  and  intelligence  of 
the  citizen  for  success.  It  is  this  above  all  that 
makes  the  drink  question  one  that  lies,  as  Cobden 
said,  “ at  the  foundation  of  all  social  and  policical 
“ reform.” 

Ballot  Reform  bills  may  prove  a check  to  the 
spread  of  this  corruption  in  one  direction  ; but 
Ballot  Reform  itself  must  now  come,  it  seems,  if  it 
comes  at  all,  modified  at  the  dictates  of  saloom 
bred  politicians.  But  should  it  accomplish  all  it 
promises,  it  will  reach  but  one  phase  of  an  all- 
pervading  disease.  It  is  not  corruption  at  the 
ballot-box  alone,  but  corruption  in  the  primaries 
and  nominating  conventions,  and  corruption  in 
office  as  well.  In  a magazine  article  a few  years 
ago  Mr.  Theodore  Roosevelt  told  of  his  experience 
in  Albany  as  a legislator.  When  seeking  to  secure 
the  passage  of  certain  reform  bills,  he  and  his  col- 


88 


THE  PLEASURES  OF  DRINK. 


leagues  investigated  with  care  the  character  c-^ 
their  fellow  members  of  the  legislature,  with  u 
view  to  finding  out  how  many  they  could  depend 
on  to  resist  efforts  at  bribery.  The  conclusion  they 
reached  was  that  fully  sixty  per  cent,  of  the  legis- 
lators  could  not  be  relied  on.  Within  the  last 
few  months,  the  President  of  the  United  States  in 
his  inaugural  address,  and  a majority  of  the  Gov- 
ernors, in  their  messages  to  the  legislatures,  have 
called  attention  to  the  extent  of  political  corrup- 
tion as  one  of  the  most  serious  and  imminent 
dangers  to  the  Commonwealth.  It  is  fast  becom- 
ing literally  true  that,  as  Wendell  Phillips  once 
said : “ Universal  sulfrage  is  a sham  while  rum 
“ rules  our  great  cities.” 

12.  The  Pleasures  of  Drink. 

Such  are  the  evils,  in  outline,  that  are  attend- 
ant upon  the  saloon.  They  are  public  evils,  and 
justify  whatever  public  action  seems  to  be  neces- 
sary for  their  prevention.  That  they  are  insepar- 
able from  the  traffic,  uniform  experience  indicates. 
What  are  the  benefits  which  the  traffic  confers  as 
an  offset  to  these  evils?  In  considering  these,  the 
plea  made  for  liquor  as  a medicinal  agent  is,  of 
course,  not  pertinent,  since  it  is  not  proposed  to 
abridge  the  manufacture  or  sale  of  liquor  fci 
medicinal,  mechanical,  or  chemical  purposes. 

ThejtleaJs  sometimes  advanced  that  the  traffic 
gives  employment  to  mai^'  ^Imusands  of  raen_and 
gnpport  to  their  families.  This  is  true  ; but  unless 


THE  PLEASURES  OF  DRINK. 


89 


tor  that  support  some  adequate  return  is  made 
society,  then  their  support  is  at  the  expense  of 
others,  and  the  larger  the  number  employed  in 
the  traffic;  the  greater  becomes  the  economical  evil. 
It  is,  moreover,  a demonstrable  fact  that  whereas 
one  million  dollars  of  capital  invested  in  the  manu 
facture  of  liquor  gives  emploj^ment  to  285  persons, 
the  same  amount  invested  in  one  of  the  other  ten 
leading  industries  of  the  nation  gives  employment, 
on  an  average,  to  876  persons.*  If  the  money, 
therefore,  now  invested  in  the  manufacture  of 
liquor  were  invested  in  other  forms  of  industry  it 
would  give  employment  to  three  times  as  many 
men  and  pay  two  and  one-half  times  as  much  as 
now  in  wages. 

A similar  plea  to  the  above  is  often  heard,  to 
the  effect  that-the_liquor  traffic  furnishes  to  the 
farmer  a valuable  market  for  his  grain.  This  plea 
is,  when  analyzed,  equally  as  unsubstantial  as  the 
preceding  one.  The  amount  of  corn,  rye,  and 
barley  msed  in  the  manufacture  of  liquor  is  pro- 
bably about  one  bushel  out  of  every  twenty  raised 
by  the  farmer.  But  it  must  be  evident  that  a very 
considerable  proportion  of  the  money  now  paid 
into  the  saloons  would,  but  for  drink,  be  expended 
in  provisions,  clothing,  and  similar  necessities  and 
comforts  of  life.  For  every  dollar  now  expended 
for  drink,  the  farmer  receives  about  five  cents  for 
the  grain  furnished  by  him.  For  the  same  amount 


*This  estimate  is  based  on  the  figures  given  in  the  Census  Rene  ii 
tor  1880,  - ^ V.  . P , 


90 


THE  PLEASURES  OF  DRINK. 


of  money  expended  in  food-products,  such  for 
instance  as  bread,  the  farmer  receives  about  seven- 
teen cents  out  of  every  dollar. 

After  all  is  said,  there  remains  but  one  plea  that 
can  be  made  for  the  traffic  on  the  basis  of  any 
benefits  it  confers,  and  that  is  a plea  for  the  social 
and  physical  pleasures  Aeiiyed  from  drink.  Con- 
sideration is  called  to  the  fact  that  for  every  person 
who  drinks  to  his  ruin,  tliere  are  many  who  derive 
a keen  delight  from  drink  without  demonstrably 
impairing  their  faculties  or  rendering  themselves 
burdens  upon  society. 

It  is  not  a slight  thing  to  curtail  the  pleasures 
of  mankind.  In  tlie  divine  plan,  pleasures  and 
pains  seem  to  be  the  great  forces,  acting  in  oppo- 
site directions,  which  are  bringing  the  race  into 
conformity  with  the  laws  of  nature  and  the  pur- 
poses of  the  Creator.  In  the  pleasure  of  posses- 
sion as  well  as  in  the  pains  of  poverty,  are  found 
the  incentives  to  thrift  and  endeavor.  The  pleas- 
ures of  health  as  well  as  the  pains  of  disease  are 
incentives  to  self-control  and  physical  activity. 
The  destruction  of  a legitimate  pleasure  is  a posi- 
tive moral  loss  to  the  world,  and  no  nature  can  be 
anything  but  dwarfed  in  which  the  faculty  of 
enjoyment  has  not  been  developed. 

Were  the  question  (as  it  is  so  often  conceived 
to  be)  simply  that  of  curtailing  the  enjoyments  of 
the  many  to  save  a few  from  their  self-inflicted 
pains,  the  objections  to  such  a course  would  be 
numerous  and  strong.  But  the  question  is  one 


THE  PLEASURES  OF  DRINK. 


91 


ladically  different  from  that.  Not  to  release  the 
slave  of  appetite  from  the  degradation  which  he 
has  wrought  upon  himself,  but  to  protect  the  Com- 
monwealth from  the  burdens  laid  upon  it  by  drink, 
and  to  protect  the  innocent  and  helpless  victims 
of  others’  appetites,  who  are  unable  to  protect 
themselves^  is  the  prime  purpose  of  prohibitory 
law. 

For  above  and  beyond  all  the  evils  that  can  be 
shown  by  statistics  or  figured  into  dollars  and 
cents,  are  the  heartbreaks  of  those  who  are  linked 
to  the  drunkard  by  bonds  indissoluble.  It  has 
been  said  that  “there  is  no  argument  in  a woman’s 
“ cry.”  Be  that  as  it  may,  it  is  more  than  an  argu- 
ment : it  is  an  appeal.  A serious  thing  it  may  be 
to  curtail  the  pleasures  of  mankind ; but  is  it  not 
far  more  serious  to  continue  pleasures  that  can  be 
had  only  by  the  continuance  of  conditions  that  are 
certain,  ever  and  everywhere,  to  entail  upon  count- 
less thousands  woes  that  are  immeasurable  ? The 
issue  is  not  the  wine-cup  about  which  poets  have 
sung,  but  the  saloon,  whose  horrors  only  a Dante 
could  fittingly  describe. 

If  the  preceding  calculations  are  correct,  the 
number  of  intemperate  drinkers  in  our  nation, 
and  those  who  drink  hard  and  constantly,  is  about 

2.500.000.  These  represent,  on  the  usual  average, 

10.000. 000  others  who  are  bound  to  them  by 
family  ties  and  to  greater  or  less  extent  dependent 
upon  them  for  support  and  protection.  If,  then,  one- 
^alf  the  entire  adult  population  of  the  nation  are 


92 


RECAPITT^LATIOIf. 


temperate  drinkers,  there  is  still,  for  every  one  who 
safely  tastes  the  pleasures  of  drink,  one  to  whom 
drink  has  brought  sorrow,  shame,  and  suffering 
that  beggar  description.  Is  such  a pleasure  worth 
a price  so  great? 

13.  Recapitulation. 

In  the  preceding  pages,  the  endeavor  has  been 
to  set  forth  the  following  points : 

1.  That  Prohibition  is  an  established  legal  right 
of  the  Commonwealth. 

2.  That  it  is  in  harmony  with  those  views  of  gov- 
ernment on  which  social  philosophers  of  all  schools 
are  agreed. 

3.  That  its  purpose  is  not  to  reform  the  moral 
conduct  of  the  individual,  but  to  relieve  society 
of  the  burdens  and  dangers  imposed  upon  it  by 
drink. 

4.  That  it  interferes  with  the  performance  of 
no  religious  duty  and  does  not  involve  a decision  on 
the  biblical  questions  that  arise. 

5.  That  instead  of  depriving  the  physician  of 
full  freedom  in  administering  liquor  as  a medi- 
cine, it  vindicates  his  right  alone  to  decide  when 
its  medicinal  use  is  demanded. 

6.  That  the  traffic  in  drink  is  attended  by  evils 
of  exceptional  gravity  which  are  inseparable  from 
■t,  and  which  are  in  no  wise  limited  to  those  who 
participate  in  the  traffic.  That  these  evils  are  of 
three  kinds  : (1)  IMoral  evils,  including  two-thirds 
of  the  criminal  offenses,  and  the  loss  of  thirty 
thousand  lives  each  j^ear;  (2)  economical  evihi, 


RECAPITULATION. 


93 


aggregating  a cost  of  between  eight  and  nine  hun- 
dred millions  of  dollars  each  year ; (3)  political 
evils  that  have  a vital  bearing  on  the  most  import- 
ant political  questions  of  the  day. 

7.  That  the  pleasures  conferred  by  the  traffic 
are  in  striking  disproportion  to  the  evils  it  inflicts. 

There  still  remain  to  be  considered  the  ques" 
tions,  Does  Prohibition  work  well  in  practice,  and. 
Is  a new  party  necessary  or  advisable  for  securing 
it  ? 


PART  II ; THE  POLICY. 


Is  THE  Policy  of  Peohibitioh  ohe  which,  hsi 
Actual  Operation,  Accomplishes  the  De- 
sired Ends  ? 

“The  man  who  writes,  speaks,  or  meditates  without  being  well- 
stocked  with  facts,  as  landmarks  to  the  understanding,  is  like  a mar- 
iner who  sails  along  a treaclierous  coast  without  a pilot,  or  one  who 
adventures  in  the  wide  ocean  without  a rudder  or  compass.”— iord 
Bacon.” 

“ Argument  however  admirable,  and  logic  how- 
“ ever  conclusive,”  wrote  George  William  Curtis 
recently  in  dealing  with  another  subject,  “ do  not 
“ avail  with  the  English -speakiug  race  like  actual 
“ experiment.”  Concerning  any  proposed  public 
policy,  the  question  asked  by  the  social  philoso- 
pher is.  Is  the  principle  embodied  in  the  policy  a 
correct  one  ? The  question  asked  by  the  poli- 
tician is.  Will  the  policy  work?  The  statesman, 
with  an  eye  both  to  ultimate  tendencies  and 
immediate  results,  is  forced  to  ask  both  questions. 
Not  until  social  science  shall  have  become  one  of 
the  exact  sciences,  can  a nation  afford  to  take 
more  than  a step  at  a time  in  untried  paths,  how- 
ever many  the  attractions  they  present.  Philosophy, 
after  all,  is  but  the  deduction  of  general  laws 
from  the  experiences  of  the  past ; and  in  social 
94 


THE  POLICY. 


95 


philosophy  especially,  the  advent  of  a new  fact  or 
a new  force,  or  a set  of  new  experiences,  may  at 
times  act  upon  the  best  of  theories  much  as  the 
advent  of  a new  planet  in  our  solar  system  might 
act  upon  the  calculations  of  our  astronomers. 

Fortunately  for  the  consideration  of  the  subject 
of  this  volume,  the  experiments  with  prohibitory 
legislation  have  already  lasted  for  more  than  a 
generation  and  have  been  tried  under  many  differ- 
ent conditions. 

There  are  at  present  five  States  of  the  Union — 
namely,  Maine,  Vermont,  Rhode  Island,  Kansas, 
and  Iowa — under  prohibitory  law  which  applies, 
in  each  case,  to  the  entire  State.  In  New  Hamp- 
shire there  is  Prohibition  of  the  sale  but  not  of  the 
manufacture  of  liquor.  In  addition  to  these 
States,  prohibitory  law  applying  to  the  entire  State 
has  been  on  the  statute  books  of  three  other  States, 
namely,  Massachusetts,  Connecticut,  and  Michi- 
gan. In  addition  still  to  these,  portions  more  or 
less  considerable  of  many  other  States  are  now 
under  piohibitory  law  secured  by  county  or  muni- 
cipal action,  those  States  in  which  these  portions 
are  most  considerable  being : Georgia,  Mississippi, 
Tennessee,  Kentucky,  North  Carolina,  South 
Carolina,  Arkansas,  Massachusetts,  and  Connecti- 
cut. In  nearly  all  the  States,  however,  there  is,  as 
in  New  York,  Illinois,  Ohio,  and  Nebraska,  local 
Prohibition  to  some  extent. 

In  two  of  the  five  States  now  under  the  opera- 
tion of  State  Proliibiton,  the  law  has  had  an 


96 


THE  POLICY. 


almost  continuous  existence  for  more  than  thirty 
years — namely,  Maine  and  Vermont.  In  Rhode 
Island  tlie  present  law  was  adopted  in  May  1886, 
but  prior  to  that  time,  namely,  from  1853  to  1862, 
and  again  from  1874  to  1875,  Rhode  Island  was 
under  statutory  Prohibition.  In  Kansas  and  Iowa 
the  law  has  been  in  existence  respectively  eight 
and  four  years.  In  three  of  the  five  States, 
namely,  Maine,  Kansas  and  Rhode  Island,  the  law 
has  been  imbedded  in  the  State  Constitution. 

In  addition,  a number  of  other  States,  during 
the  period  from  1851-1855,  adopted  prohibitory 
laws,  through  the  action  of  the  Legislature,  which 
were  either  declared  unconstitutional  by  reason  of 
certain  clauses  confiscating  liquor  in  the  market 
prior  to  the  passage  of  the  law,  or  wliich  were 
repealed  in  a very  short  time  before  the  machinery 
for  their  execution  could  be  constructed  or  fairly 
tried.  As  interest  centres  chiefly  in  the  five 
States  now  under  the  operation  of  the  law,  the 
examination  into  the  results  in  those  States  for- 
merly under  prohibitory  laws,  which  have  since 
been  repealed,  will  not  be  made  in  elaborate 
detail.  These  States  number  four,  namely,  Michi- 
gan, Rhode  Island,  Connecticut,  and  Massachu- 
setts. 

In  three  of  these  four  States,  namely,  Michigan, 
Rhode  Island  and  Massachusetts,  the  law  was 
adopted  in  the  same  year — 1855.  In  the  other 
State,  Connecticut,  the  law  was  adopted  the  year 
nvpvious.  One  highly  important  consideration  ure- 


THE  POLICY. 


97 


sents  itself  at  once,  from  these  dates  of  enactment, 
and' that  is,  the  political  condition  of  the  country 
at  this  time  or  immediately  thereafter.  The  ques- 
tion of  African  slavery  was  rapidly  becoming  the 
all-absorbing  question  of  the  nation.  The  Repub- 
lican party  had  just  had  its  birth  (1854),  on  the 
issue  of  the  non-extension  of  slavery,  polling  in  its 
first  national  campaign,  two  years  later  (so  intense 
had  the  feeling  already  become)  one  and  one-third 
millions  of  votes.  The  Whig  party  was  being 
broken  in  pieces,  in  the  South  by  the  Know-Noth- 
ings, in  the  North  by  the  Republicans.  In  Con- 
gress a struggle  was  going  on  that  absorbed  the 
attention  of  the  Nation  as  never  before  or  since. 
The  very  atmosphere  grew  electric  with  excite- 
ment and  nowhere  more  so  than  in  the  three  New 
England  States  we  are  considering.  The  exist- 
ence of  the  Union  was  hanging  in  the  balance. 
Civil  war  followed  soon,  in  1861,  lasting  until 
1866. 

In  the  second  year  of  the  war,  the  prohibitory 
law  was  repealed  in  Rhode  Island,  and  superseded 
by  a license  law,  the  need  for  increased  revenue 
being  doubtless  at  that  time  an  important  factor 
in  bringing  about  the  change.  The  law  was  re-en- 
acted in  1874,  but  its  trial  then  was  limited  to  a 
single  year. 

In  Massachusetts  the  prohibitory  provisions  of 
the  law  were  repealed  the  second  year  after  the 
war  closed  (1867)  ; two  years  later  (early  in  1870) 
these  provisions  were  re-enacted,  but  in  the  same 

7 


98  THE  INQUIRY  BY  THE  CANADIAN  PARLIAMENT. 

year  malt  liquor  was  exempted  from  the  prohibi- 
tion. Three  years  later,  this  exemption  was  with- 
drawn, and  two  years  later  still  (1875)  the  entire 
law  was  superseded  by  a license  law. 

In  Michigan,  the  law  remained  on  the  statute- 
books  until  1875,  but  prior  to  that,  a decision  had 
been  made  by  the  State  Siq^ireme  Court,  giving  to 
municipalities  the  right,  under  the  law,  of  taxing 
the  traffic,  which  effectually  disposed  of  what 
force  the  law  had  possessed. 

In  Connecticut,  the  law  continued  in  force  until 
1872,  when  it  was  superseded  by  license  and  local 
option . 

It  becomes  evident,  then,  that  in  each  of  these 
tour  States,  for  at  least  ten  years  immediately  suc- 
ceeding the  enactment  of  Prohibition,  the  excite- 
ment leading  up  to  and  during  the  war  rendered 
the  conditions  unfavorable  to  a concentration  of 
either  attention  or  energy  upon  its  enforcement. 
Even  in  local  elections  the  issue  of  slavery  had 
become  dominant  and  dividing,  and,  as  a matter  of 
fact,  the  enforcement  of  Prohibition  seems  during 
this  period  to  have  been  a matter  of  very  little 
political  moment. 

1.  The  Inquiry  Instituted  hy  the  Canadian  Par- 
liament. 

It  is  fortunate  for  the  investigation  at  this  point, 
that  in  1874  the  Governor-General  of  Canada,  at 
the  solicitation  of  the  Canadian  Paidiameut, 
appointed  a Sp/^c?ax  Commission  “ tc  inquire  into 


THE  INQUIRY  BY  THE  CANADIAN  PARLIAMENT.  99 

“ the  working  of  the  prohibitory  liquor  laws.” 
This  commission  consisted  of  two  men,  namely, 
F.  Davis,  a lawyer,  and  Rev.  J.  M.  Manning. 
They  seem  to  have  investigated  with  much  pains- 
taking the  effects  of  the  law  in  Maine  and  Massa- 
chusetts, and,  less  thoroughly,  the  effects  in  Ver- 
mont, Michigan,  Connecticut,  and  Rhode  Island. 
The  results  of  their  investigation  were  embodied 
in  a report  to  the  Secretary  of  State  of  Canada, 
printed  in  1875.  Taking  up  their  report  as  it 
pertains  to  rhe  four  States  now  under  considera- 
tion, namely,  Michigan,  Rliode  Island,  Connecti- 
cut, and  Massachusetts,  we  find  the  condition  of 
things  in  each  of  those  States  to  have  been  as 
follows  : 

Michigan.  It  seems  to  have  been  generally  ad- 
mitted that  the  law  in  this  State  was  not  enforced 
to  any  appreciable  extent,  except  in  some  of  the 
rural  communities.  “ In  all  the  large  cities  and 
“towns,”  Governor  Bagley  wrote  to  the  Commis- 
sion, “the  law  was  inoperative  and  not  enforced 
“at all.”  Rev.  John  Russell,  “ the  father  of  Prohi- 
“bition  in  Michigan,”  wrote  to  the  Commission  to 
the  same  effect,  saying,  “ the  prohibitory  clauses 
“of  the  law  were  not  generally  enforced.”  Yet 
the  law  itself,  in  this  State,  was,  according  to  the 
judgment  of  the  Commission,  “ the  best  prohibi- 
“ tory.  law  ” they  found  anywhere.  The  reasons 
for  its  non-enforcement  are  not  pointed  out.  It 
was  doubtless  due  to  the  twin  causes  of  public 
indifference  and  official  apathy. 


100  THE  INQUIRY  BY  THE  CANADIAN  PARLIAMENT. 

Rhode  Island.  The  report  of  the  Commission 
gives  but  little  of  fact  in  regard  to  the  results  in 
this  State  during  the  period  from  1854  to  1862. 
A letter  is  quoted  from  Hon.  W.  R.  Watson, 
Secretary  of  State,  written  in  1854,  in  which 
emphatic  testimony  was  given  as  to  the  good 
results  of  the  law,  but  the  letter  gives  only  gen- 
eral statements,  not  specific  facts,  such  as  : Its 
“ effect,  I cannot  doubt,  has  been  greatly  to 
“ diminish  crime,  pauperism,  insanity,  and  that 
“ long  dark  catalogue  of  evils — moral,  social  and 
“physical — which  result  from  intemperance.” 
Something  more  specific  than  this  is  given  the 
Commission  for  the  year  1852,  during  which  the 
State  was  under  a prohibitory  law  which  was 
soon  pronounced  unconstitutional.  The  figures 
given  for  Providence  county  show  a reduction  in 
the  number  of  committals  to  the  county  jail,  from 
161  in  the  license  year  of  1851,  to  99*  in  the 
prohibitory  year  of  1852  ; and  a reduction  in 
the  number  of  committals  for  drunkenness  in 
the  city  of  Providence,  fi’om  282  in  three 
months  of  1851,  to  177  in  the  corresponding 
three  months  of  1852.  The  conclusion  drawn 
by  tile  Commission  in  reference  to  this  State 
is  pi'obably  safe  enough  as  far  as  it  goes, 
namely,  that  the  law  was  “in  some  parts  of  the 
“State  well  enforced,  in  others  not.”  (p.  49.) 

Connecticut.  In  this  State,  according  to  the 
annual  mess'»ges  of  Governor  Dutton  and  Gov- 
ernor Minor,  hi  1855  and  1856  respectively,  the 


(THE  INQUIRY  BY  THE  CANADIAN  PARLIAMENT.  101 

law  was  well  enforced  in  those  years  and  its  bene- 
fits were  marked.  Governor  Dutton  said,  as 
quoted  by  the  Commission  (p.  78.)  : “There  is 
“ scarcely  an  open  grog-shop  in  the  State,  the  jails 
“are  fast  becoming  tenantless,  and  a delightful 
“ air  of  security  is  everywhere  enjoyed.”  Gov- 
ernor Minor’s  statements  are  to  a similar  effect, 
as  are  also  those  quoted  from  Dr.  Leonard 
Bacon,  then  and  now  a sturdy  opponent  of  Pro- 
hibition. Dr.  Bacon  said  : “-****  its  [the 
“ law’s]  effect  in  promoting  peace,  order,  quiet, 
“ and  general  pi’osperity  no  man  can  deny.  Never 
“ for  twenty  years  has  our  city  [New  Haven] 
“ been  so  quiet  as  under  its  action.”  These  testi- 
timonies,  it  will  be  noticed,  refer  entirely  to  the 
first  two  years  after  the  law  was  enacted.  (Dr. 
Bacon  afterward  testified  before  the  Joint  Special 
Committee  of  the  Massachusetts  Legislature,  that 
the  year  after  his  testimony  just  quoted  was 
given,  the  political  control  of  the  city  passed  into 
the  hands  of  a party  hostile  to  the  law,  and  the 
good  effects  of  Prohibition  soon  disappeared.) 
The  only  facts  given  by  the  Commission  for  later 
years  were  the  number  of  jail  committals  in  the 
State  for  the  prohibitory  year  1866,  and  for  the 
two  years  (1873-4)  following  the  law’s  repeal.  In 
1866  the  number  of  commitments  is  given  as 
1576*  ; in  the  year  ending  March,  1873  (partly  a 
license  and  partly  a prohibitory  year),  they  num- 

* This  is  the  number  given  in  the  Report  of  tlie  Commission.  Official 
figures  for  that  year  give  tlie  number  as  1827.  For  the  other  years, 
1873-4.  the  figures  given  by  the  Commissioii  agree  with  the  official 
figures. 


102  THE  INQUIRY  BY  THE  CANADIAN  PARLIAMENT. 

bered  2985  ; in  the  year  ending  March  1874 
(wholly  a license  year)  they  numbered  4481. 
(Complete  official  figures  will  be  found,  in  Appen- 
dix, note  D,  showing  the  number  of  commitments 
in  Connecticut  for  the  entire  period  under  Pro- 
hibition— 1854-1873,  as  well  as  under  license — 
1873-1884). 

3Iassaeliusettes.  In  this  State  the  Commission 
seem  to  have  investigated  results  with  more  care 
chan  was  bestowed  upon  an}"  other  Stare.  The 
evidence  obtained  was  of  two  kinds,  the  opinions 
of  public  men,  and  official  statistics.  Nearly  all 
this  evidence,  however,  pertains  to  the  period  im- 
mediately following  the  close  of  the  Civil  war.  It 
seems  to  have  been  generally  understood  that  for 
the  period,  of  1856-1866  the  enforcement  of  the 
law  was  not  at  all  general.  “ For  ten  years  it  was 
“ a dead  letter  act,”  is  the  statement  made  to  the 
Commission  by  Captain  Boynton,  chief  of  the 
State  Police. 

In  the  year  1867,  however,  a vigorous  effort  was 
made  for  the  enforcement  of  the  law,  through  a 
State  constabulary  appointed,  for  that  special  pur- 
pose. This  enforcement  led  to  a combined  assault 
upon  the  law  by  all  its  opponents,  which  resulted 
in  its  repeal  November,  1867,  the  new  regime  of 
license  lasting  until  1869.  The  comparisons  be- 
tween 1867  and  1868,  one  a prohibitory  and  one  a 
license  year,  are  furnished  by  the  Commission's 
report  as  follows  : 

The  commitments  to  the  Massachusettes  State 


THE  INQUIRY  BY  THE  CANADIAN  PARLIAMENT.  103 

prison,  which  in  the  first  nine  months  of  1866,  a year 
of  unenforced  Prohibition,  had  numbered  156,  fell 
in  the  first  nine  months  of  the  year  following,  under 
the  vigorous  efforts  to  enforce  the  law,  to  80.  In 
the  next  year  (1868)  under  license,  they  numbered, 
for  the  corresponding  nine  months,  143.  (The 
figures  are  given  for  nine  montlis  of  each  year, 
instead  of  twelve,  because  the  prohibitory  law 
was  in  force  but  nine  months  of  1867.)  The 
inspectors  of  the  State  prison,  in  their  official  re- 
port, attribute  this  increase  in  commitments  in 
1868  to  the  repeal  of  the  prohibitory  law. 

In  the  city  of  Boston,  where  the  efforts  to  en- 
foree  the  law  in  1867  were  less  successful  than 
anywhere  else  in  the  State,  the  reports  of  the 
Chief  of  Police  show  nevertheless  an  inerease  in 
the  .cases  of  drunk  and  disorderly,  from  6690  for 
the  last  six  months  of  1867  (which  includes  two 
months  after  the  repeal  of  Prohibition*)  to  8053 
in  the  corresponding  months  of  1868.  In  addi- 
tion to  this  increase,  the  record  showed  an  ifi crease 
of  3838  in  the  number  of  station-house  lodgers 
(vagrants),  and  an  increase  of  248  in  the  number 
of  criminal  arrests.  The  following  shows  the 
total  increase : 


Increase  of  criminal  arrests 248 

Increase  of  station-house  lodgers 3838 

Increase  of  drunkenness  and  assaults 1363 

Increase  for  the  six  months  under  the  license  system 5,449 


In  addition  to  this  inerease,  there  was  an  in- 

* The  license  law  did  not,  legally,  go  into  effect  until  1868,  but  prac- 
tically the  prohibitory  law  became  inoperative  with  the  election  oj 
November,  1867. 


104  THE  INQUIRY  BY  THE  CANADIAN  PARLIAMENT. 

Crease  during  the  same  period  of  six  months  of 
“not  far  from  twenty-five  per  cent.”  to  “the  vari- 
“ous  correctional  and  pauper  institutions  of  Suf- 
“ folk  county.” 

A still  fuller  comparison  was  made  in  the 
Report  of  the  Board  of  State  Charities,  in  1868. 
In  most  cases,  under  the  prohibitory  law,  the 
drunkard  was  punished  with  a fine  only ; when 
the  fine  could  not  be  paid,  the  offender  was  sent 
to  Jail,  to  the  House  of  Correction,  or  to  the 
House  of  Industry.  The  number  of  such  cam- 
mitments  increased  in  the  entire  State  from  2501 
in  six  months  of  1867  (April — October)  to  3170 
in  the  corresponding  six  months  of  1868. 

The  Governor  of  the  State  (Governor  Claflin), 
- the  State  Constable,  the  Board  of  Inspectors  of 
the  State  Prison,  and  the  Board  of  State  Charities, 
all  called  attention,  in  very  emphatic  language,  to 
this  increase  of  crime,  and  all,  without  exception, 
attributed  it  to  the  repeal  of  the  prohibitory  law. 
In  consequence  of  this  increase  of  crime  Prohibi 
tion  was  re-enacted,  going  again  into  force  Jann 
ary,  1870,  but  in  the  same  year  additional  legisla 
tion  was  enacted  exempting  malt  liquors  from  the 
provisions  of  the  law.  The  figures  indicate  but  a 
slight  decrease  of  crime  during  the  following 
years.  From  the  fall  of  1873  to  the  fall  of  1874, 
there  was  another  year  of  complete  prohibitory 
law,  the  enforcement  of  which  seems  to  have  at- 
tained a fair  degree  of  efficiency  toward  the  close 
of  the  year,  when  again,  as  in  1867,  the  enemies 


THE  INQUIRY  BY  THE  CANADIAN  PARLIAMENT.  105 

of  the  law  rallied  at  the  polls  and  elected  a license 
legislature,  by  which  license  and  local  option  laws 
were  enacted  in  1875,  which  are  still  iin  force. 

In  the  foregoing  brief  resume,  little  reference 
has  been  made  to  other  evidence  than  that  embod- 
ied in  the  report  of  the  Canadian  Commissioners. 
Importance  is  attached  to  that  leport  for  two  rea- 
sons : (1)  Because  it  embodies  the  result  of  an  of 
ficial  investigation  made  soon  after  the  trial  of 
Prohibition  in  these  States  had  come  to  an  end, 
and  while  facts  were  fresh  in  the  minds  of  men 
regarding  it ; (2)  Because  this  investigation  was 
conducted  by  officials  from  a neighboring  king- 
dom, who,  it  is  to  be  presumed,  were  entirely  free 
from  either  political  or  personal  entanglements 
that  might  have  biased  their  minds.  The  evi- 
dence adduced  by  this  Commission  was  obtained 
by  personal  visitation  to  the  States  mentioned, 
and  communication,  either  orally  or  by  letter, 
with  those  whose  testimonies  are  given. 

Other  evidence  confirms  the  general  character 
of  this  report.  In  1867  a Joint  Special  Commit- 
tee was  appointed  by  the  Massachusetts  Legisla- 
ture to  investigate  the  effects  of  the  prohibitory 
law  in  that  State.  The  committee  held  twenty- 
seven  sittings  in  Boston,  early  in  1867,  and  exam- 
ined 108  witnesses  summoned  by  those  opposing 
the  prohibitory  law,  75  witnesses  summoned  by 
the  friends  of  the  law,  and  9 witnesses  from  the 
College  of  Pharmacy  who  had  petitioned  for  a re- 
peal of  the  law.  Among  these  witnesses  were 


106  THE  INQUIRY  BY  THE  CANADIAN  PARLIAMENT 

ex-Governors,  constables,  sheriffs,  judges,  attor- 
heys,  city  missionaries,  mayors,  chiefs  of  police, 
college  professors,  ministers,  phj^sicians,  manufac- 
turers and  others.  The  testimony  of  each  is 
given  in  tlie  Report  of  the  Committee,  which  is 
published  in  a large  octavo  volume  of  898  pages 
The  testimonies  given  by  eminent  men  in  regard 
to  the  effects  of  the  prohibitory  law  were  so  diver- 
gent, that  the  only  conclusion  to  be  drawn  is  that 
the  effects  of  the  law  (prior  to  1867)  had  been 
equally  divergent  in  different  portions  of  the 
State.  As  an  almost  invariable  rule,  however, 
those  known  as  temperance  men  expressed  them- 
selves emphatically  in  favor  of  the  law,  while 
with  few  exceptions  the  witnesses  summoned  by 
the  opponents  of  the  law  acknowledged  their 
habits  of  drinking.  As  a result  of  this  investiga- 
tion, eight  of  the  committee  signed  a report  in 
favor  of  the  repeal  of  the  law  and  six  signed 
reports  in  favor  of  its  continuance. 

The  figures  showing  the  commitments  to  Jail  in 
Connecticut  for  each  year  from  1852  to  1872  (the 
period  of  Prohibition),  and  from  1872  to  1884  (a 
period  of  license,)  have  been  compiled  Muth  much 
care  by  E.  P.  Augur,  of  IMiddletown,  Conn.,  (see 
Appendix,  note  D.),  from  official  returns  and  jail 
records.  These  figures  show,  despite  the  lax 
enforcement  of  the  prohibitory  law,  a marked  in- 
crease of  crime  immediately  upon  the  repeal  of 
the  law.  Taking  the  commitments  to  Jail  during 
the  years  of  Prohibition  following  the  ivar. 


THE  INQUIRY  BY  THE  CANADIAN  PARLIAMENT.  107 


namely,  1866-1872,  inclusive,  and  the  first  seven 
years  following  its  repeal,  and  we  have  the  follow- 
ing: 


SEVEN  YEARS  UNDER  PROHIBI-  SEVEN  YEARS  OF  LICENSE  AND 
TORY  LAW.  LOCAL  OPTION. 


18 ’6 

1827 

1873 

...  4481 

1867 

1693 

1874 

4448 

1868 

1821 

1875 

4425 

1869 

*1876  

3103 

1870 

2593 

1877 

4149 

1871 

1878 

4577 

1872 

tl879 

15.970 

• 29,017 

♦Eight  months  only. 
tTramp  law  went  into  effect. 

The  increase  of  population  in  Connecticut,  from 
1860  to  1880,  was  on  an  average  1.76  per  cent, 
each  year.  This  would  give  an  increase  in  seven 
years  of  12.32  per  cent.,  while  the  increase  in  jail 
commitments  in  the  seven  years  after  the  repeal 
of  the  law,  was  nearly  82  per  cent.,  more  than  six 
and  one-half  times  as  great. 

The  commitments  for  drunkenness  and  common 
drunkards,  during  these  same  years,  were  as  fol- 
lows : 


SEVEN  YEARS  UNDER  PROHIBI- 
TORY LAW. 


SEVEN  YEARS  UNDER  LICENSE 
AND  LOCAL  OPTION. 


1866 

537 

1873 

2125 

1867 

484 

1874 

2044 

1868 

1875 

. 2175 

1869 

812 

*1876 

1347 

1870 

1050 

1877 

1734 

1871 

1290 

1878 

2141 

1872 

1470 

tl879 

1628 

6248 

13,194 

*Eight  months  only. 
fTramp  law  went  into  effect. 


These  figures  show  an  increase  of  more  than 
100  per  cent.,  in  the  commitments  to  jail  for  drunk- 


108  THE  INQUIRY  BY  THE  CANADIAN  PARLIAMENT. 

enness,  after  the  repeal  of  the  prohibitory  law, 
and  in  spite  of  the  fact  that  many  towns  took  ad- 
vantage of  the  local  option  law  to  refuse  license 
to  saloons.  It  should  be  borne  in  mind  also  that 
the  seven  years  of  prohibitory  law  here  given 
were,  in  most  respects,  the  worst  years  for  the 
law,  ensuing  immediately  after  the  return  to  civil 
life  of  the  Federal  soldiers,  with  the  drink-habits 
formed  amid  the  hardships  of  camp-life,  and  be- 
ing years  during  which  an  incessant  agitation  for 
the  repeal  of  the  law  was  kept  up. 

The  general  conclusions  which  it  is  safe  to  draw 
from  the  facts  developed  in  regard  to  these  four 
States — Michigan,  Rhode  Island,  Connecticut,  and 
Massachusetts — are  about  as  follows  : 

1.  That  in  these  four  States,  during  the  greater 
part  of  the  period  in  which  prohibitory  law  pre- 
vailed, there  was  no  vigorous  and  general  enforc- 
ment  of  the  law. 

2.  That  this  period  was,  for  the  most  part,  iden- 
tical with  that  immediately  preceding  and  during 
the  war. 

3.  That  in  those  years  in  which  the  law  was 
enforced  with  vigor,  there  was  an  immediate  and 
marked  decrease  of  crime. 

Proceeding,  then,  to  consider  the  results  in  the 
five  States  which  now  have  prohibitory  laws, 
namely,  Maine,  Vermont,  Kansas,  Iowa,  and 
Rhode  Island,  we  find  that  the  two  first  named 
have  had  almost  continuous  Prohibition  for  more 
than  a generation.  The  other  three  States 


THB  RESULTS  IIJ  MAINE. 


109 


ad'j/^ted  the  policy  in  the  order  in  which  they  are 
named. 

2,  The  Results  in  Maine. 

This  M AS  the  pioneer  State  in  the  movement, 
and  gave  vO  State  Prohibition  the  first  trial  it  had 
ever  had.  The  initial  movement  leading  to  the 
adoption  o’’  the  policy  took  place  prior  to  1840, 
and  had  its  origin  in  the  mind  and  heart  of  Gene- 
ral James  Appleton,  a citizen  of  Portland,  who 
was  in  183V  a member  of  the  State  Legislature. 
The  policy  was  first  adopted  by  the  Legislature  in 
1846,  but  certain  essential  clauses  were  lacking  to 
the  law  until  1851,  when  General  Neal  Dow 
framed  a bill  which  was  enacted  into  law  and  has 
become  known  to  the  world  as  “ The  Maine 
Law.”  The  important  feature  added  by  General 
Dow  was  the  search  and  seizure  clause. 

The  law  became  at  once  a political  issue  of 
magnitude.  Five  years  later  its  enemies,  by  a 
political  coalition,  succeeded  in  electing  a hostile 
Legislature,  by  which  the  law  vms  repealed,  and  a 
stringent  license  law  substituted. 

The  triumph  over  the  law  was  a short-lived 
one.  Out  of  the  changing  political  conditions  of 
that  time  was  born,  in  1854,  the  Republican  party, 
which  in  Maine,  the  State  of  its  birth,  planted 
itself  on  the  two  issues  of  Abolition  and  Prohibi- 
tion. Succeeding  to  power  in  the  Legislature  the 
following  year,  instead  of  at  once  re-enacting  the 
law,  it  was  submitted  to  popular  vote  and  by  a 


110 


THE  RESULTS  IN  MAINE. 


majority  of  22,952  (28,864  for,  5912  against) 
Prohibition  was  adopted.  The  law  therefore  was 
re-enacted  in  1858,  after  two  years  of  license,  and 
with  various  additions  has  remained  the  law  of 
the  State  ever  since.  It  was  not,  however,  em- 
bodied in  the  State  Constitution  until  1884. 
Being  voted  on  in  September  of  that  year,  after 
thirty  years’  trial,  it  received  a majority  of  nearly 
three  to  one  in  its  favor  (70,783  for,  23,811 
against). 

Twice,  then,  the  verdict  of  the  citizens  of 
Maine  has  been  taken  by  popular  vote,  once  after 
five  years  of  trial,  and  once  after  thirty  years  of 
trial.  Twice  the  verdict  rendered  has  been  in  its 
favor,  and  by  a majority  twice  as  large  in  the  sec- 
ond instance  as  in  the  first. 

In  making  their  inquiry  in  1874,  the  Canadian 
Commission  alread}"  referred  to,  bestowed  a large 
share  of  their  attention  on  Maine.  Inquiries  were 
directed  to  those  whose  official  positions  gave 
them  the  best  opportunities  for  knowing  the  facts, 
and  were  directed  to  those  opposing  as  well  as  to 
those  favoring  the  principle  of  Prohibition.  As 
an  indication  of  the  extent  to  which  the  Commis- 
sion conducted  its  investigation,  the  names  are 
here  given  of  those  from  whom  they  obtained 
responses,  either  orally  or  bi’  letter,  namely : 
Governor  Dingley,  ex- Attorney-General  Drum- 
mond, Judge  Clifford,  of  the  United  States 
Supreme  Court;  an  ex-lMayor  of  Portland;  Alder- 
man Carleton,  of  Portland;  Mr.  Hobbs,  of  “The 


THE  RESULTS  IN  MAINE. 


Ill 


Portland  Argus;”  Deputy  Marshal  Brydges,  of 
Portland ; Inspector-General  Alger,  of  Bangor : 
Judge  Goodman,  of  the  Bangor  Police  Court; 
Recorder  Lyons,  of  the  same  Court ; Mayor  Blake 
and  Alderman  Crosby,  of  Bangor;  Warden  Rice, 
of  the  State  Prison ; Secretary  of  State  Stacy, 
Judges  True,  Farwell,  and  Bennoch,  of  Augusta, 
Rockland,  and  Orous,  respectively ; two  select- 
men of  Orous,  the  Overseer  of  the  Poor,  in  Ban- 
gor ; the  City  Marshal  of  Rockland,  and  the  pro- 
prietor of  a hotel  in  Rockland. 

In  addition  to  the  opinions  obtained  from  the 
above  men,  official  reports  and  messages  are 
quoted  from  Governors  Chamberlain,  Perham, 
and  Dingley,  and  from  the  Majmrs  and  City 
Marshals  of  Lewiston,  Bangor,  Rockland,  and 
Augusta. 

Two  of  the  questions  asked  by  the  Commission 
were  as  follows : 

“ Is  the  liquor  law  enforced,  and,  if  not,  what  is 
the  hindrance  to  its  working?  ” 

“ What  have  been  the  results  of  a change  from 
Prohibition  to  license,  or  vice  versa  ? ” 

In  the  replies  received  to  these  two  questions, 
one  thing  is  especially  noticeable,  namely,  that 
while  many^  especially  those  resident  in  Portland 
and  Bangor^  admit  that  there  is  a lax  enforcement 
of  the  laiv^  yet  all,  without  exception,  testify  to  the 
good  results  of  the  law  even  when  it  is  poorly 
enforced. 


112 


THE  KEStJLTS  IN  MAINE. 


A few  extracts  will  indicate  tlie  nature  of  the 
replies  on  this  point.  United  States  Justice  Far- 
well  said  : “ The  law  being  on  the  statute  book, 
“even  if  not  enforced,  has  a good  moral  influence, 
“ as  it  familiarizes  the  people  with  the  fact  that 
“ rum  is  outside  of  law.”  “ Where  the  law  is  oidy 
partially  enforced,”  said  Warden  Rice,  of  the 
State  Prison,  “ it  has  a good  influence  because  it 
“outlaws  the  traffic.”  Mayor  Blake,  of  Bangor, 
though  expressing  his  preference  for  a license  law 
for  cities,  stated  that,  “ although  the  law  had  been 
“only  partially  enforced,  yet  the  sale  of  liquor 
“ had  been  driven  into  the  low^est  quarters  and 
“ into  the  hands  of  the  most  disreputable  class, 
“ and  that  certainly  the  absence  of  the  open  sale 
“diminished  drinking  and  ecnsequently  crime.” 

In  fact,  however  great  the  diversity  of  opinion 
expressed  in  regard  to  the  extent  to  wTich  the  law 
was  enforced,  there  was  absolute  unanimity  on 
this  point,  that,  wRether  well  enforced  or  not,  the 
law  accomplished  certain  excellent  results.  This 
is  a point  that  requires  explanation.  Just  how  a 
law,  not  enforced,  can  accomplish  such  results,  is 
at  first  thought  an  enigma.  Consideration  will 
be  given  to  thisi  point  farther  on  ; at  present  the 
aim  is  simply  to  ascertain  facts. 

An  opinion  of  especial  value,  both  by  reason  of 
the  high  position  of  the  one  expressing  it  and  tha 
care  with  wdiich,  evidentl}’,  it  was  given,  was  that 
from  Judge  Woodbury  Davis,  for  ten  j^ears  a 
member  of  the  Supreme  Court  of  Maine.  On 


THE  RESULTS  IN  MAINE. 


113 


the  point  to  which  attention  has  been  called 
alreadj’,  Judge  Davis  says: 

Such  laws  are  not  valueless  even  in  communi- 
ties where  they  a-re  but  rarely  enforced.  As 
teachers  of  public  conscience,  the  standard  of 
which  is  seldom  higher  than  human  law,  their 
value  is  above  all  price.” 

Speaking  of  the  extent  to  which  the  law  was 
enforced,  J udge  Davis  says : 

“ Of  our  four  hundred  cities  and  towns,  making 
the  estimates  below  what  I believe  the  facts 
would  justify,  I am  satisfied  that  in  more  than 
one  hundred  the  law  prevents  any  sale  of  liquor 
whatever  for  a beverage.  In  at  least  two  hun- 
dred of  them  it  is  sold  only  in  the  way  that  Dr. 
Bacon  calls  ‘ on  the  sly,’  just  as  in  the  same 
towns  there  are  persons  guilty  of  lewdness  and 
other  crimes.  In  most  of  the  other  hundred 
towns  liquors  are  sold  probably  without  much 
restraint.” 

So  much  for  opinions  on  the  law  and  its  results, 
as  obtained  by  the  Canadian  Commissioners.  The 
figures  obtained  were  equally  instructive,  though 
the  Commission  was  hampered  somewhat  in  this 
respect  by  the  fact  that  a number  of  the  cities  in 
Maine,  especially  Portland,  Bangor  and  Augusta, 
“ had  suffered  from  fires  that  had,  to  a very  great 
“ extent,  destroyed  their  public  records.” 

The  Warden  of  the  State  Prison  supplies 
figures  showing  the  number  of  committals  to  the 


114 


THE  RESULTS  IN  MAINE. 


prison  for  the  two  years  (1855-56)  just  before  the 
prohibitory  law  was  repealed,  the  two  years  (1857- 
58)  during  which  the  prohibitory  law  was  replaced 
with  a stringent  license  law,  and  the  two  years 
(1859-60)  after  the  re-enactment  of  Prohibition.  A 
better  test  could  hardly  be  imagined.  The  foUow- 
ing  are  the  figures: 

COMJVIITMENTS  TO  STATE  PRISON  OF  MAINE. 


TWO  TEAKS  OP  FliO-  TWO  YEARS  OF  LI-  I TWO  TEARS  OF  PEO" 
flIBITlOX.  CENSE.  HIBITION. 


1855 

29 

1857 

52 

1859 

1856 

36 

1858 

69 

I860 

41 

65 

121 

89 

Here,  it  will  be  noticed,  there  appeared  an  imme- 
diate increase  in  commitments  as  soon  as  the  pro- 
hibitory law  was  repealed,  and  an  immediate 
decrease  as  soon  as  the  law  was  re-enacted. 

The  City  Marshal  of  Bangor,  in  his  report  the 
year  after  the  law  was  repealed,  calls  attention  tc 
the  increase  of  crime,  as  follows  : 

“ In  my  report  relating  to  matters  connected  with 
the  Police  Department  of  the  cit}’,  at  the  close 
of  the  municipal  year  1851-52,  I stated  that 
the  city  had  been  freer  from  crime  and  dis- 
turbance than  during  the  year. previous,  or  ant- 
year  since  I had  been  connected  with  the  affairs 
of  fhe  city.  This  I attributed  to  the  stringent 
latv  passed  in  1851  for  the  suppression  of  drink- 
ing houses  and  tippling  shops.  This  year  [under 
license]  I have  to  report  that  never,  since  I 
have  had  any  acquaintance  with  the  Police 


THE  RESULTS  IN  MAINE. 


115 


Department  of  this  city,  have  there  been  so 
many  commitments  for  offences  as  during  the 
year  now  closed.” 

According  to  the  report  of  the  same  official,  the 
arrests  in  Bangor  for  drunkenness,  disorderly  con- 
duct and  assaults,  numbered  93  in  the  last  eight 
months  (1860-51)  preceding  Prohibition,  and  45 
for  the  first  eight  months  under  Prohibition. 

Bangor  and  Portland  were  at  this  time  the  only 
two  cities  in  Maine  with  a population  of  more 
than  10,000.  In  Portland,  the  effects  of  the  law 
were  still  more  marked.  In  Cumberland  eounty 
(including  Portland)  according  to  figures  quoted 
by  the  Commission  from  a work  on  “ The  Maine 
Liquor  Law : Its  Origin,  History,  and  Results,” 
by  H.  S.  Chubbs,  Secretary  of  the  Maine  Law 
Statistical  Society,  the  results  were  as  follows  : 


2::?= 

O 3 

£1 

rg-g 

: o 

i-i. 

• ^ 2 
: o 

i 

; c c 

o 

: Hflr 

3 

PcT 

! s:^ 

: & 

' (TD 

• I ^ 

• 

Nunibei-  of  commitments  to  County  Jails,  excluding 

279 

63 

216 

431 

180 

251 

Coininitnieiits  to  Alms  House 

252 

146 

106 

Commitments  for  drunkenness  to  the  House  of  Cor- 

lection 

*34 

t8 

26 

Total : 

996 

397 

599 

♦Five  iiiontlis. 
tFor  seven  months. 

From  these  figures  it  appears  that  in  Cumber- 
land county,  containing  the  largest  city  in  the 


116 


THE  RESULTS  IN  MAINE. 


State,  the  committals  were  reduced  sixty  per  cent., 
in  the  first  nine  months  of  Prohibition.  In  these 
two  cities  therefore,  Portland  and  Bangor,  the  law 
seems  at  the  beginning,  without  any  doubt,  to  have 
been  attended  with  a most  marked  reduction  in 
crime.  That  this  result  was  general  throughout 
the  State  seems  to  be  shown  by  the  figures  given 
by  the  Warden  of  the  State  Prison,  and  might 
have  been  inferred  from  the  fact  that  in  these  two 
cities  the  enforcement  of  the  law  has  always  been 
attended  with  greatest  difficulty. 

The  condition  in  Maine  during  the  last  few 
years,  under  the  prohibitory  law,  has  been  the  sub- 
ject of  much  discussion  and  contradictory  testi- 
mony. On  the  one  hand  it  has  been  asserted  by 
credible  investigators  that  the  law  fails  of  its  pur- 
pose, in  that  saloons  are  prevalent  and  drunkenness 
is  rife.  Other  equally  credible  witnesses  assert  just 
as  emphatically  that  the  law,  if  it  has  not  made  an 
end  to  the  traffic,  has  checked  it  to  a great  extent 
and  disrobed  it  of  its  attractiveness.  The  only 
official  statistics  bearing  directl}^  on  the  question 
are  those  of  the  Internal  Revenue  Department. 
A special  tax  of  $25.00  is  imposed  b}^  the  Federal 
Government  on  every  retail  liquor-dealer  in  the 
nation.  As  the  penalties  for  selling  at  retail 
before  having  paid  this  tax  are  verj*  severe,  there 
are  few  who  undertake,  even  in  prohibitory  States, 
to  evade  the  payment  of  this  tax.  The  records  of 
the  Internal  Revenue  Department  show,  therefore, 
from  year  to  year,  the  number  of  those  selling  at 


THE  RESULTS  IN  MAINE. 


117 


retail  in  each  State.  But  the  records  show  more 
than  this,  esj^ecially  for  prohibitory  States,  for  the 
payment  of  tljis  tax  does  not  give  any  one  the 
right  to  sell  liquor  in  violation  either  of  State  or 
local  laws.  John  Smith,  for  instance,  may  under- 
take the  sale  of  liquor  in  Maine.  The  first  step 
he  takes  is  likely  to  be  the  payment  of  this  twenty- 
five  dollar  tax,  inasmuch  as  his  failure  to  do  so 
will  be  a penitentiary  offence,  and  since  until 
January,  1888,  the  payment  of  this  tax  was  not 
held  to  be  evidence  against  him.*  If 

after  the  payment  of  this  tax,  the  officers  of  the 
State  discover  that  John  Smith  is  selling  liquor 
contrary  to  the  law  of  the  State,  and  place  him  in 
the  jail  and  his  stock  of  liquors  in  the  sewer,  the 
payment  of  the  federal  tax  does  not  save  him. 
But,  just  the  same,  though  he  may  have  been  sell- 
ing only  a week,  the  Internal  Revenue  Report 
includes  him  of  course  in  the  list  of  special  tax 
payers  for  Maine.  Neal  Dow  is  authority  for  the 
statement  that  at  one  time,  a few  years  ago,  there 
were  in  the  Portland  jail  forty  of  these  special  tax- 
payers. 

So  that  the  reports  sh(fw  not  only  the  number 
of  actual  open  and  secret  dealers  in  liquor,  includ- 
ing town  agents  and  druggists,  but  the  number  of 
would-he  dealers  as  well.  The  aggregate  number 
of  all  these  has  been  for  the  last  few  years,  accord- 
ing to  the  Internal  Revenue  Reports,  as  follows : 

♦The  decision  made  by  Judge  Wiiitehouse,  tiiat  the  prima  facie  act 
was  unconstitutional,  was  not  reversed  by  the  State  Supreme  Court 
until  January,  1888. 


118 


THE  RESULTS  Hf  MAINE. 


( Retail  dealers  in  distilled  liquor 10.54 

1883  < Retail  “ “ malt  “ 108 

Total 1162 

( Retail  dealers  in  distilled  liquor 974 

1884  < Retail  “ “ malt  “ 103 

Total 1077 

(Retail  dealers  in  distilled  liquor 1014 

1885-;  Retail  “ “ malt  “ 80 

Total 1094 

(Retail  dealers  in  distilled  liquor 951 

1886k  Retail  “ “ malt  “ i 73 

Total 10S4 

(Retail  dealers  in  distilled  liquor 919 

1887 -J  Retail  “ “ malt  “ 92 

Total 1011 


During  these  and  the  preceding  years  the  State 
of  Maine  constituted  an  Internal  Revenue  district 
by  itself.  In  1888  it  was  combined  with  Vermont 
and  New  Hampshire,  and  the  figures  for  the  three 
States  are  given  together,  the  number  of  retail 
dealers  being  in  that  year  2127  for  the  three 
States,  a decrease  of  461  from  the  preceding  year. 

Comparing  Maine  with  the  four  New  England 
States,  Massachusetts,  Connecticut,  Rhode  Island, 
and  New  Hampshire  (the  manufacture  of  liquor  is 
allowed  by  law  in  the  last  State  and  the  sale  fol- 
lows with  little  hindi’ffnce),  and  we  find,  by  the 
figures  of  the  Internal  Revenue  Department,  the 
following  results ; 

111  Maine  one  retail  dealer,  on  an  average,  from  1883  to  1888,  to  610 


of  popiilatioii. 

In  New  Hampshire,  one  to 263  of  population 

111  Rhone  Island,  “ “ 217 

In  Connecticut,  ‘ ' 213  “ “ 

In  Massachusetts,  “ ‘ 242  “ “ 


One  other  thing  the  Internal  Revenue  Reports 


THE  RESULTS  IN  MAINE. 


119 


tell  us,  and  that  is  the  amount  of  liquor  manufac- 
tured in  each  State.  The  records  for  Maine  dur- 
ing the  last  live  years  are  as  follows : 


lauQ  I Distilled  liquor None 

Malt  liquor " 

100^  S Distilled  liquor None 

I Malt  liquor “ 

100-  5 Distilled  liquor. None 

I Malt  liquor “ 


1886  I 


Distilied  liquor, 
Malt  liquor 


None 

.2170  galls 


1887 


Distilled  liquor. 
Malt  liquor 


■None 


So  much  for  the  story  as  told  by  the  Reports  of 
the  Internal  Revenue  Department.  It  is,  in  brief, 
that  there  is  practically  no  liquor  produced  in 
Maine,  and  that  the  number  of  retail  dealers, 
including  town  agents,  druggists,  and  open  and 
secret  violators  of  law,  is  but  little  more  than  one- 
third  as  large,  in  proportion  to  population,  as  in  the 
four  other  New  England  States. 

So  far  as  personal  testimony  goes,  it  is  exceed- 
ingly contradictory ; but  this  has  been,  broadly 
speaking,  the  case,  that  those  who  were  opponents 
of  the  law  have  testified  against  it,  and  those  who 
were  friends  of  the  law  have  testified  in  its  favor. 
Justin  McCarthy,  in  1874,  after  personal  investiga- 
tion, concluded  that  the  law  was  a failure.  Canon 
Farrar,  in  1885,  after  a personal  investigation  also, 
concluded  that  it  was  an  undoubted  success.  But 
Justin  McCarthy,  as  well  as  Canon  Farrar,  agreed 
that  the  voice  of  tne  people  in  Maine  was'strongly 
in  favor  of  the  law.  This  appears  also  from  the 


120 


THE  RESULTS  IN  MAINE. 


vote  on  the  prohibitory  amendment  taken,  as  nas 
been  stated,  in  1884,  after  thirty-one  years  of  trial 
of  the  law,  the  vote  standing  three  in  favor  of  the 
amendment  to  every  one  against.  This  seems  to 
bear  out  the  statement  made  by  Congressman 
(now  Senator)  Frye,  of  i\Iaine,  in  a letter  to  the 
Chicago  Advance  March  19,  1874,  in  which  he 
said:  “ When  the  law  was  enacted  I have  no  doubt 
“ two-thirds  of  the  people  were  at  heart  opposed 
“ to  it ; now  they  could  not  to  be  induced  to  repeal 
“ it.” 

Every  Governor  of  Maine,  from  1867  down  to 
the  present  time,  has  publicly  borne  testimony  to 
the  good  results  of  the  law,  the  following  catch- 
words sufficing  to  show  the  nature  of  their  testi- 
mony in  each  case : Gov.  Chamberlain  : “ as  well 
executed  generally  in  the  State  as  other  criminal 
laws  are ; ” Governor  Perham  referring  to  liquor 
trade : “ probably  not  one  tenth  as  large  ” [as 
before  Prohibition];  Governor  Dingley : “has 
effectually  closed  both  open  and  secret  dram-shoj^s 
in  three-fourths  of  i^Iaine ; ” Governor  Robie  : 
“has  worked  immense  advantages  for  the  State  of 
“ iNIaine  ; ” Governor  Bodwell : “ nowhere  that  I 
“have  been  are  the  people  so  free  from  all  the 
“ evils  incident  to  the  liquor  traffic  as  in  this 
“ State.” 

Testimonies  just  as  strong  as  these  against  the 
law  could,  no  doubt,  be  cited,  but  very  few,  if  any. 
of  them  would  be  fro'r  public  men  resident  in  the 
State  and  daily  under  the  operations  of  the  law. 


THE  RESULTS  IN  MAINE. 


121 


If  one  attempts  to  explain  tins  uniform  testimony 
of  the  public  men  of  Maine  in  favor  of  the  work- 
ing of  the  law,  by  attributing  it  to  political  inter- 
est, one  has  still  to  explain  why  it  is  that  political 
interest  in  Maine  requires  political  leaders  to  be 
outspoken  in  favor  of  the  law.  In  1885,  The 
Voice,  of  New  York,  published  the  opinions  of 
Mayors  and  Selectmen  of  towns  and  cities  in 
Maine.  The  request  had  been  sent  to  the  Mayor 
of  every  city  having  a population  of  one  thousand 
or  more.  Of  the  replies  received,  forty-two 
declared  the  law  to  be  an  unqualified  success,  and 
the  saloon  to  be,  in  those  cities,  entii’ely  extirpated. 
In  ten  cities,  the  open  Saloon  was  said  to  be 
unknown,  but  liquor  was  sold  in  secret.  In  eight 
cities,  the  law  was  declared  to  be  an  unqualified 
failure,  and  saloons  to  be  running  openly. 

Nevertheless,  it  is  admitted  that  in  all  the  larger 
cities  of  Maine,  liquor  is  still  sold,  and  in  some  of 
them  the  liquor  traffic  openly  defies  the  law,  and 
is  carried  on  without  concealment.  This  has  been 
the  case  in  Bangor  and  Belfast,  and  frequently  in 
Portland,  Neal  Dow  stated  in  1885  that  there 
were  one  hundred  places  in  Portland  where  liquor 
was  sold,  not  including  forty  drug  stores.  Volney 
B.  Cushing  (Prohibition  candidate  for  Governor 
in  1887)  said  in  that  year  that  in  his  home — 
Bangor — there  were  one  hundred  saloons  openly 
defying  the  law  and  813  out  of  1094  arrests  the 
year  before  were  for  drunkenness.  To  assert  that 
the  liquor  traffic  has  been  eradicated  in  Maine, 


122 


THE  RESULTS  IN  VERMONT. 


would  be  flying  in  the  face  of  nximberless  testi- 
monies from  unimpeachable  witnesses.  But  to 
deny  that  the  law  has  been  attended  with  a 
marked  decrease  of  crime  and  drunkenness,  and 
that  it  has  very  greatly  checked  the  sale  of  liquor 
and  the  habit  of  drinking,  is  to  contradict  the 
report  of  the  Canadian  Commission,  the  official 
figures  of  the  Internal  Revenue  Department,  and 
the  overwhelming  verdict  of  the  people  of  INIaine 
after  a trial  of  the  law  for  more  than  a generation. 

3.  The  Results  in  Vermont. 

Much  less  interest  has  seemed  to  attach  to 
Vermont  than  to  other  prohibitory  States,  partly 
because  it  is  a small  State  having  but  one-half  the 
population  of  Maine,  and  partly  because  of  its 
proximity  to  the  latter  State  in  which  the  law  was 
first  tried  and  from  which  it  has  received  the  name 
by  which  it  is  popularl}^  known.  In  some  respects 
— chiefly  the  size  and  the  inland  situation  of  the 
State — the  trial  of  Prohibition  in  Vermont  has 
taken  place  under  more  advantageous  conditions 
than  in  any  other  State.  But  the  law  itself  has 
been  by  no  means  as  stringent  as  in  IMaine,  nor  as 
in  Kaiisas  and  Iowa.  The  teeth  of  a criminal  lau 
are  in  its  penalties,  and  these  are  very  light  in  the 
Vermont  law.  The  fine  for  a first  offence  in  selling 
contrary  to  the  law  is  but  ten  dollars  ; for  a second 
offence,  but  twenty  dollars  ; for  a third  offence, 
twenty  dollars  and  imprisonment  not  less  than 
three  months.  The  same  fines  are  imposed  for 


THE  RESULTS  IN  VERMONT. 


123 


keeping  intoxicating  liquor  for  sale,  and  a fine  of 
^100  is  imposed  on  conviction  of  being  a common 
seller. 

The  Internal  Revenue  Reports  give  the  follow- 


ing figures  for  Vermont : 

« 

( Retail  dealers  In  distilled  liquors 454 

1883  1 Retail  dealers  in  malt  liquors  62 

Total 616 

( Retail  dealers  in  distilled  liquors 439 

1881  1 Retail  dealers  in  malt  liquors 47 

Total.. i 486 

i Retail  dealers  in  distilled  liquors 426 

1885  ] Retail  dealers  in  malt  liquors 59 

Total.. 485 

( Retail  dealers  in  distilled  liquors 516 

1886  I Retail  dealers  in  malt  liquors 49 

Total 565 

1 Retail  dealers  in  distilled  liquors 448 

1887  < Retail  dealers  in  malt  liquors 50 

Total 498 


The  average  number  during  these  five  years 
has  been  610,  a proportion  of  one  to  659  of 
population,  a smaller  proportion  even  than  in 
Maine.  The  following  are  the  figures  for  the  pro- 
duction of  liquor  in  Vermont: 


1883  • 

i Distilled  liquors 

f Malt  liquors 

1884  • 

1 Distilled  liquors 

1 Malt  liquors.... 

1885  1 

i Distilled  liquors 

• Malt  liquors 

1886  - 

f Distilled  liquors 

1 Malt  liquors 

1887  1 

1 Distilled  liquors 

( Malt  liquors 

In  Maine  and  Vermont,  therefore,  the  sum  total 
of  liquor  produced  in  the  five  years  from  1883  to 
1887  inclusive  was  2,630  gallons  of  distilled  liq- 


124 


THE  RESULTS  IN  KANSAS. 


uor,  most  of  which  in  all  probability  was  for  use 
in  the  arts. 

4.  The  Ke.sults  in  Kansas. 

The  prohibitory  amendment  to  the  Constitu- 
tion of  Kansas  was  adopted  in  1880,  and  enforcing 
legislation  went  into  elfect  in  1881.  For  a period 
of  four  years  the  liquor  dealers  maintained  an 
open  fight  in  many  of  the  larger  cities,  plying 
their  trade  with  but  little  effort  at  concealment. 
In  1885  an  amendatory  law  was  passed  by  the 
legislature  which  declared  saloons,  breweries,  and 
distilleries  to  be  common  nuisances  and  authoriz- 
ing any  citizen,  by  an  action  in  the  nature  of  a 
suit  in  equity,  to  abate  and  perpetually  enjoin 
them. 

With  that  year  the  reign  of  Prohibition  in  Kan- 
sas may  be  said  to  have  been  firmly  established. 
Tlie  open  defiance  of  the  saloons  in  the  large  cit- 
ies was  changed  to  secret  subversion  of  the  law, 
many  of  the  liquor  dealers  taking  advantage  of 
the  privileges  accorded  to  druggists,  to  convert 
their  saloons  into  pseudo  drug-stores,  and  thus 
continue  the  outlawed  business.  In  1887,  the 
passage  of  the  Murray  law  did  away  to  a great  ex- 
tent with  that  subterfuge.  The  IMurray  ’aw  made 
it  unlawful  for  any  but  a registered  pharmacist 
to  sell  liquor,  and  required  each  pharmacist 
to  undergo  examination  before  he  could  be  regis- 
tered. 

The  hopes  of  the  liquor  dealers  then  hung  ou 


I 


THE  RESULTS  IN  KANSAS.  125 

the  decisions  of  the  courts.  Judge  Brewer,  of 
the  U.  S.  Circuit  Court  of  Kansas,  had,  in  Febru- 
ary, 1886,  decided  that  a brewery  or  distillery 
could  not  be  prohibited  and  enjoined  as  a nuisance 
by  the  State  unless  compensation  was  rendered 
tlie  owner.  The  case  was  appealed  to  the  U.  S. 
Supreme  Court,  by  which  the  opinion  of  Judge 
Brewer  was  reversed  (see  Appendix,  note  A),  in 
December,  1887.  That  year  the  last  brewery  was 
closed,  and  its  proprietor  thrown  into  jail,  from 
which  place  he  wrote.  May  21,  1887,  to  the  U.  S. 
Brewers’  Association,  then  assembled  in  National 
Convention  in  Baltimore,  saying : u * * * 
does  not  pay  to  keep  up  the  fight  any  longer.” 
The  same  year  the  trade  report  of  the  liquor  busi- 
ness in  Kansas  City,  Mo.,  the  chief  base  of  sup- 
plies up  to  that  time  for  the  liquor  dealers  of 
Kansas,  said  : 

“ Wholesale  liquor  dealers  say  they  have  with- 
drawn the’r  traveling  men  from  Kansas  within 
the  last  six  months,  and  that  they  are  making 
no  effort  whatever  to  do  business  in  that  State. 
* * * * For  a time  after  the  adoption 

of  Prohibition  in  Kansas,  liquor  dealers  in  Kan- 
sas' City  did  a large  business  with  the  drug 
stores,  but  since  they  have  been  stopped  from 
retailing  liquor  the  trade  has  dwindled  to  al- 
most nothing.” 

From  the  Reports  of  the  Internal  Revenue  De- 
partment, and  from  the  U.  S.  Census  Report  ot 


126 


THE  RESULTS  IN  KANSAS. 


population  in  1880,  and  the  State  Census  in  1885. 
the  following  figures  are  obtained : 

t Retail  dealers  in  distilled  liquors 1821 

1880  < Retail  dealers  in  malt  liquors 117 

Total 1938  1 for  514  population- 

( Retail  dealers  in  distilled  liquors 1132 

1881  < Retail  dealers  in  malt  liquors 56 

Total 1118  1 for  918  population. 

1 Retaii  dealers  in  distilled  liquors 1460 

1882  4 Retail  dealers  in  malt  liquors 52 

Total 1512  1 for  784  population. 

1 Retail  dealers  in  distilled  liquors....  1898 

1883  < Retail  dealers  in  malt  liquors 51 

Total 1949.  1 for  595  population. 

1 Retail  dealers  in  distilled  liquors 1948 

1884  < Retail  dealers  in  malt  liquors 77 

Total 2025.  1 for  600  population. 

( Retail  dealers  in  di.stilled  liquors...  2086 

1885  < Retail  dealers  in  malt  liquors 65 

Total 2151.  1 for  590  population. 

C Retail  dealers  in  distilled  liquors...  2318 

1886  < Retail  dealers  in  malt  liquors 83 

Total 2401.  1 for  563  population. 

t Retail  dealer-s  in  distilled  liquors...  2098 

1887  < Retail  dealers  in  malt  liquors 84 

Total 2182.  1 for  658  population. 

( Retail  dealers  in  distilled  liquors...  1277 

1888  < Retail  dealers  in  malt  liquors 119 

Total 1396.  1 foritlSY  population. 

These  figures  show  a decrease  in  the  number  of 
retail  dealers  from  one  for  514  of  population 
in  1880,  the  5*ear  before  Prohibition  was  enacted, 
to  one  for  1087  of  population  in  the  year  1888. 
Especially  is  this  decrease  apparent  in  the  last 
two  years,  since  the  Murray  law  went  into  force. 
When  it  IS  borne  in  mind  that  the  figures  just 

given  represent  not  only  all  the  successful  viola- 

l 


THE  RESULTS  IN  KANSAS. 


127 


tors  of  law,  but  all  the  unsuccessful  ones  as  well, 
the  decrease  becomes  still  more  striking. 

The  Attorney  General  of  Kansas  in  his  Sixth 
Biennial  Report  (1887-88)  estimates  that  tl|e 
number  of  places  where  liquor  was  actually  sol'd 
in  1888  is  less  than  one  half  the  number  given  in 
the  preceding  table.  He  says  : 

“■  By  an  accurate  mathematical  calculation, 
based  upon  official  reports  made  to  this  Depart- 
ment, I have  ascertained  that  there  is  noAV  in 
Kansas,  in  1888,  not  to  exceed  one  place  where 
liquor  is  sold  to  every  2220  people — the  smallest 
percentage  of  any  State  in  the  Union.  When 
we  take  into  consideration  the  stringent  regula- 
tions under  Avhich  it  is  sold,  we  are  safe  in  say- 
ing that  there  is  not  to  exceed  ten  per  cent,  as 
much  liquor  sold  in  Kansas  in  1888  as  there  was 
in  1880.” — (^Sixth  Biennial  Report  of  the  Atty. 
Gtenl.  of  Kansas,  p.  10.) 

Official  figures  showing  the  amount  of  crime  in 
Kansas  are  furnished  in  the  Attorney  General’s 
Report,  though  not  as  full  as  could  be  desired. 
The  figures  are  given  for  the  following  years  only, 
namely,  1874,  1880,  1881,  1887.  By  these  it 
appears  that  the  increase  in  the  number  of  com- 
mitments from  1874  to  1880  was  a steady  one,  rising 
from  169  to  291.  In  1881,  the  first  year  of  Pro- 
hibition. the  number  fell  at  once  from  291  to  184. 
In  1885  it  had  again  reached  the  figure  for  1880, 
and  in  1887  the  number  was  351.  Comparing 
these  figures  with  the  population,  we  have : 


128 


THE  RESULTS  IN  KANSA'S. 


License  S 1874 one  commitment  for  3,132  of  population. 

6 yi’S.  > 1880 one  coniinitinent  for  3,423  of  population. 

Prohibi-  S 1881 one  commitment  for  5,709  of  population. 

tion6  yrs.  J 1887 one  commitment  for  4,090  of  population. 


These  figures  do  not  show  the  amount  of  crime 
since  the  passage  of  the  Murray  law  in  1887.  Com- 
menting on  the  condition  of  things  as  shown  by 
the  criminal  statistics,  the  Attorney  (General 
says  (p.  8 :)  “ Prohibition  is  here  to  stay  : it  is  a 

“fixed  fact.  It  is  indelibly  stamped  upon  oursta 
“ tute  book.  A vote  of  the  people  would  never 
“erase  it.  For  the  good  it  has  done  and  will  do, 
“it  ought  never  to  be  erased.  It  is  depopulating 
“our  Penitentiary  and  reducing  pauperism  and 
“crime  to  the  minimum.”  And  again  (p.  9)  he 
adds:  “The  saloon  has  been  banished  from  Kan- 
“ sas  soil  and  already  the  result  can  be  appreciated. 
“ The  average  age  of  those  convicted  of  crime  and 
“sent  to  the  Penitentiary,  in  Kansas,  has  increased, 
“a  proof  conclusive  that  the  boys  of  to-day  in 
“ this  State  are  not  inmates  of  these  dens  of 
“ infamy  and  schools  of  crime.  The  county  jails 
“ throughout  the  State  are  comparatively  empty, 
“ and  the  number  of  convicts  in  the  Penitentiary 
“ is  growing  less.”  This  decrease  of  crime  it 
must  be  remembered,  has  occurred  during  a 
remarkable  increase  of  population,  amounting  to 
more  than  fifty  per  cent,  in  the  last  eight  years. 

Of  course,  in  weighing  the  words  of  State  offi- 
cials in  reference  to  the  condition  of  things  in 
their  own  State,  some  allowance  is  naturally  made 
for  a laudable  State  pride  which  may  cause  them 


THE  RESULTS  IN  KANSAS. 


129 


to  see  things  in  a little  more  roseate  light  than 
might  appear  to  a more  impartial  observer.  But 
State  pride  is  not  likely  to  affect  official  statistics. 
In  1887  (July  12th,)  the  Governor  of  Kansas, 
John  A.  Martin,  sent  to  the  Associated  Press  an 
elaborate  statement  of  the  results  of  Prohibition 
in  Kansas,  in  response  to  certain  reports  about 
Atchison.  The  statement  (published  in  full  in 
Appendix,  note  E.)  reviews  at  considerable  length 
the  effects  of  the  law  on  the  material  prosperity  of 
the  State,  summing  up  these  results  as  follows : 

“ The  most  wonderful  era  of  prosperity,  of 
material,  moral,  and  intellectual  development,  of 
growth  in  country,  cities  and  towns,  ever  wit- 
nessed on  the  American  Continent,  has  been 
illustrated  in  Kansas  during  the  six  years  since 
the  temperance  amendment  to  our  Constitution 
was  adopted,  and  especially  during  the  past  two 
years,  the  period  of  its  most  energetic  and  com- 
plete enforcement.” 

Governor  Martin’s  letter  may  gain  added  sig- 
nificance ill  the  minds  of  many,  from  the  fact  that 
prior  to  the  adoption  of  the  prohibitory  amend- 
ment, he  was  not  known  as  an  advocate  of  it,  and 
was  currently  reported  to  disbelieve  in  the  wisdom 
of  its  adoption.  Whether  his  changed  attitude  is 
attributed  to  the  force  of  facts  or  to  the  force  of 
public  opinion,  it  is  perhaps  equally  significant  of 
the  hold  which  the  policy  of  Prohibition  has 
gained,  after  six  years’  trial,  on  the  people  of  that 
State. 


9 


130 


THE  RESULTS  IIST  IOWA. 


In  the  year  1886,  the  Chicago  News  (Independ> 
ent)  sent  to  the  Probate  Judge  of  each  county  in 
Kansas  an  inquiry  in  regard  to  the  effects  of  Pro- 
hibition. Replies  were  received  from  foity-uine 
counties,  and  published  in  The  News  December  15, 
1886.  In  five  counties,  the  report  was  that  there 
had  been  no  reduction  in  the  number  of  saloons  ; 
in  seven,  the  number  was  reported  to  have  been 
somewhat  reduced  ; in  twenty-five,  the  report  was 
that  every  saloon  had  been  closed.  In  two  count- 
ies the  report  was,  no  decrease  in  crime ; in  seven, 
a moderate  decrease ; in  twenty -four,  a most 
decided  decrease.  In  seven  counties,  the  report 
was  that  drinking  had  not  been  diminished ; in 
nine,  that  there  had  been  somewhat  of  a reduc- 
tion, and  in  twenty-two,  that  there  had  been  a 
very  decided  reduction. 

5.  The  Results  in  Iowa. 

A prohibitory  amendment  to  the  State  Consti- 
tution was  submitted  to  the  voters  of  Iowa  June 
27,  1882,  and  adopted  by  a majority  of  29.759. 
Because  of  a technical  oversight  made  by  the 
engrossing  clerk,  the  State  Supreme  Court  decided 
that  the  question  had  not  been  properly  submit- 
ted by  the  Legislature,  and  the  adoption  of  the 
amendment  was  declared  null  and  void.  In 
1884, . however,  the  Legislature  enacted  statutory 
Prohibition  for  the  entire  State,  which  has  re- 
mained in  force  ever  since,  a period  of  but  lit- 
tle more  than  four  years.  The  large  foreign  pop 


THE  RESULTS  IN  IOWA. 


131 


alation  in  Iowa  has  rendered  the  enforcement  of 
the  law  more  difficult  than  in  Kansas,  and  it  was 
not  until  the  Clark  law  was  passed,  in  1886,  giv- 
ing citizens  the  right  to  bring  action  against 
saloons  as  common  nuisances,  that  the  power  of 
the  law  seems  to  have  been  exerted. 

Examination  of  the  Internal  Revenue  Reports 
shows  the  following  figures  for  Iowa : 

C Retail  cle*alers  in  distilled  liquors 5001 

1883  1 Retail  dealersin  malt  liquors 283 

Total 5284— one  for  322 population. 

C Retail  dealers  in  distilled  liquors 3989 

1884  < Retail  dealers  in  malt  liquors 216 

Total 4205— one  for  410  population. 

( Retail  dealersin  distilled  liquors  ....3'49 

1885  < Retail  dealers  in  malt  liquors 229 

Total 3778 — one  for464  population. 

t Retail  dealers  in  distiiled  liquors 3769 

1886  < Retail  dealers  in  malt  liquors 152 

Total 3921— one  for  451  population. 

C Retail  dealers  in  di.stilled  liquors 3584 

1887  j Retail  dealers  in  malt  liquors 283 

Total 3867— one  for  461  population. 

( Retail  dealers  in  distilled  liquors 2928 

1888  < Retail  dealers  in  malt  liquors 249 

Total 3177 — one  for  566  population. 

This  indicates  a reduction,  in  the  fifth  year  of 
Prohibition,  of  nearly  one-third,  in  the  propor- 
tionate number  of  liquor  dealers. 

The  Internal  Revenue  Reports  show  the  follow- 
ing production  of  liquor  in  Iowa  : 


( 

Distilled  liquors 

1884  ] 

Malt  liquors 

Total  . 

, 1 

' Distilled  liquors. 

1885  -1 

Malt  liquors 

Total... 

L 

3,501.154  gallons. 
7,397,748  gallons. 


— 10.898,902  gallons. 
3,993,342  gallons. 

5,252,808  gallons. 


— 9,246,150  gallons. 


THE  RESULTS  IOWA. 


132 


1886 

Total 

1887 

Total 


! Distilled  liquors 2,396,007  gallons. 

Maltliquors 6,059,167  gallons. 

— 8,455,174  gallons. 

( Distilled  liquors 2.036,774  gallons. 

< Maltliquors 5,832,619  gallons. 


— 7,869,393  gallons. 


( Distilled  liquors 706  gallons. 

1888  < Malt  liquors 4,968,432  gallons. 

Total — 4,969.138  gallons. 


A reduction  is  here  shown  of  more  than  one- 
half  in  the  amount  of  liquor  produced,  the  dis- 
tilleries having  almost  entirely  closed  operations. 
A large  numher  of  breweries  continued  to  fight 
the  law  until  the  Supreme  Court  decision  rendered 
in  December,  1887.  As  the  fiscal  year  ends  June 
30,  it  is  probable  that  most  of  the  liquor  reported 
as  produced  in  1888  was  produced  in  the  five 
months  preceding  that  decision. 

The  criminal  records  of  the  State,  as  reported 
at  the  office  of  the  Secretary  of  State  by  the  Dis- 
trict and  County  Attorneys,  show  a marked  decrease 
in  the  last  two  years,  since  the  passage  of  the 
Clark  law.  The  figures  are  as  follows,  the  pro- 
portion of  convictions  to  population  being  esti 
mated  from  the  United  States  Census  of  1880, 
and  the  State  Census  of  1885  : 


1882—  nunibci-  convictions,  1470— one  for  1140  population. 

1883—  number  convictions,  1377 — one  for  1236  population. 

1881— number  convictions,  1.592— one  for  1085  population. 

1885—  number  convictions,  1339— one  for  1310  population. 

1886—  number  convictions,  1645— one  for  1075 population. 

1887—  number  con victjons,  1520 — one  for  1174  population. 

1888—  number  convictions,  *838 — one  for  2148  population. 

*Tbis  is  for  but  ten  months  of  the  yaar,  but  ineludes  in  that  period 
the  terms  of  court. 


Governor  Larrabee,  in  his  message  to  the  Gen- 
eral Assemblj",  January  1,  1888,  speaks  of  a 


THE  RESULTS  IN  RHODE  ISLAND. 


183 


marked  decrease,  during  the  preceding  year,  in 
the  number  of  commitments  to  the  Penitentiary, 
in  the  following  words  : 

“ Tiie  enforcement  of  the  prohibitory  law  has  been 
so  efficient  in  reducing  crime,  and  consequently 
diminishing  the  business  of  the  courts,  that  I 
recommend  a consolidation  of  districts,  so  as  to 
reduce  the  number  of  judges  from  forty  to 
thirty-four,  as  I am  satisfied  it  can  be  done  with- 
out much  inconvenience  to  the  service,  and  will 
be  a saving  financially.  * * During  the  last 

year,  and  especially  during  its  latter  half,  there 
has  been  a decided  falling  off  in  Penitentiary  con- 
victs and  a very  large  number  of  county  jails 
have  been  empty,  some  of  them  for  the  first 
time  in  years.” 

6.  The  Results  in  Rhode  Island. 

The  prohibitory  amendment  to  the  Constitution 
of  Rhode  Island  was  adopted  April  7,  1886,  by  a 
vote  of  15,113  to  9,230.  Enforcing  legislation 
was  enacted  the  following  month,  and  a Special 
State  Police  was  constituted  to  carry  out  its  pro- 
visions. In  Rhode  Island,  however,  the  injunc- 
tion clause,  which  has  given  to  prohibitory  law  in 
Kansas  and  Iowa  the  greater  part  of  its  efficiency, 
and  without  which  the  law  proved  a comparative 
failure,  has  never  been  enacted.  A vigorous 
attempt  was  made  by  the  fri^ids  of  the  law  in 
1888  to  secure  such  a clause,  but  the  Legislature 
refused  to  pass  it,  and  the  law  has  been  of  late,  in 


134 


THE  RESULTS  IN  RHODE  ISLAND. 


consequence  of  this  omission,  openly  defied  ii. 
Providence  and  other  cities. 

The  Internal  Revenue  Reports  show,  however,  a 
decrease  in  the  number  of  retail  dealers  during 
the  first  year,  as  follows : 


[■Retail  dealers  in  distilled  liquor 1425 

IgggJ  Retail  “ “ malt  “ 62 

L Total,  1487— one  for  204  pop. 

(■Retail  dealers  in  distilled  liquor 1136 

18871  Install  “ “ malt  “ 59 

L Total,  1195— one  for  254  pop. 


The  following  year,  1888,  Rhode  Island  was 
consolidated  with  Connecticut  in  the  same  Internal 
Revenue  District,  and  the  figures  for  it  alone  are 
not  given. 

The  criminal  statistics  for  Providence,  the  largest 
city  of  Rhode  Island,  showed  a marked  decrease  of 
crime  during  the  year  following  the  enactment  of 
the  law,  as  follows : 

rXotal  arrests  for  all  causes 

Year  ending J except  for  sale  of  liquor 6473 

June  30,  1886 1 Ror  dr  unkenness,  common 

L drunkards,  aud  disorderly 2617 

f Total  arrests  for  all  causes 

Year  ending  J except  for  sale  of  liquor 4087 

June  30,  1887  I For  drunkenness,  common 

L drunkards,  and  disorderly 1521 

Showing  a decrease,  in  the  first  year  of  Pro- 
hibition, of  thirty-seven  per  cent.,  in  the  crime  of 
all  kinds,  and  a decrease  in  arrests  for  drunken- 
ness of  forty-two  per  cent.  This  decrease  has 
not,  however,  continued  during  the  year  1888. 
During  the  twelve-  months  ending  December  31, 
1888,  the  arrests  for  drunkenness  and  disorderly 
conduct  numbered  4140  to  3772  for  the  correspond- 


THE  ATTITUDE  OP  THE  LIQUOR  DEALERS.  135 

ing  twelve  months  of  1887,  and  4535  for  the  cor- 
responding months  of  1886. 

7.  The  Attitude  of  the  Liquor  Dealers. 

Such  are  the  results  of  Prohibition,  in  so  far 
as  they  can  be  shown  by  statistics  and  by  the  testi- 
monies of  public  men.  ’ A few  considerations  more 
general  in  their  nature  may  perhaps  assist  one 
in  coming  to  a fixed  conclusion  regarding  the 
policy. 

One  of  these  considerations  lies  in  the  fact  that 
those  who  have  been  known  as  the  foremost 
advocates  of  total  abstinence  remain,  with  rare  ex- 
ceptions, strongly,  almost  violently  perhaps,  in 
favor  of  prohibitory  law,  and  those  whose  business 
and  political  interests  are  identified  with  the  liquor 
traffic  are  almost  if  not  altogether  unanimous  in 
opposition  to  the  policy.  The  special  significance 
of  this  is  in  its  bearing  on  the  question,  What 
have  been  the  actual  results  of  the  policy?  If 
Prohibition  had  proved  a failure,  then  one  might 
naturally  have  looked  for  these  two  parties  to 
have  reversed  their  attitude,  and  to  find  the  liquor 
dealers  covertly  if  not  openly  favoring  the  law,  and 
the  temperance  leaders  flinging  it  aside. 

— It  is  conceivable  of  course  that  even  after  a law 
has  proved  a failure,  those  who  have  championed 
it  may  still  refuse  to  believe  ill  of  it.  But  it  is 
difficult  to  conceive  that  those  whose  interests  are 
bound  up  in  the  liquor  traffic  should  continue  to 
manifest  sueh  strenuous  and  costly  opposition  to 


i86  THE  ATTITUDE  OF  THE  LIQUOR  DEALERS. 

prohibitory  law  if  it  had  failed  of  its  effects.  It  is 
at  least  a very  strong  presumption  in  favor  of  the 
success  of  the  law,  that  the  hostility  of  the  liquor 
dealers  to  it  has  deepened  steadily,  until  all 
organizations  formed  by  them  and  all  trade 
journals  published  in  their  interests  are  combined 
in  a determined  assault  upon  the  law. 

This  fact,  itself,  admits  of  no  doubt.  The  two  ' 
most  powerful  organizations  of  liquor  dealers  are, 
among  distillers,  the  National  Protective  Associa- 
tion, and,  among  brewers,  the  United  States 
Brewers’  Association.  The  former  of  these  was 
organized  in  1886  expressly  to  check  the  spread  of 
prohibitory  law.  This  was  the  purpose  stated  in 
the  call  first  issued  for  such  an  organization 
(October  18,  1886)  and  the  resolutions  adopted 
pledge  the  members  “ as  unalterably  opposed  to 
“Prohibition,  general  or  local,”  and  declare  their 
purpose  to  “endorse  the  license  system.” 

Their  opposition  was  not  limited  to  words. 
Graded  assessments  were  levied  on  all  the  members, 
varying  from  twenty-five  to  five  hundred  dollars. 
Many  thousands  of  dollars  have  been  appropriated 
to  defeat  the  adoption  of  prohibitory  laws  in  the 
last  three  years.  The  United  States  Brewers 
Association  has  been  equally  emphatic  and  almost 
equally  active  in  its  opposition  to  prohibitory 
laws.  The  attitude  of  these  two  representative 
organizations  is  followed  closely  by  State  and 
local  organizations  throughout  the  land.  In  fact 
there  is  no  difference  of  opinion  on  this  subject 


THE  ATTITUDE  OF  THE  LIQUOR  DEALERS.  137 

among  the  leaders  or  the  journals  published  in  the 
interests  of  the  liquor  trade.  It  is  almost  im- 
possible to  find  one  of  these  journals  that  does  not 
exhibit  signs  of  agitation  over  the  growth  of  Pro- 
hibition or  signs  of  jubilation  when  finding  what  it 
con.siders  indications  of  a decline.  “ Heed  the  les- 
son of  the  day,”  is  the  advice  given  in  a little 
hand-book  recently  published  by  the  attorney  of  the 
Cincinnati  Liquor  and  Malt  Dealers’  Union,  who 
continues:  “The  author  of  this  little  work  does 
“ not  wish  to  appear  in  your  eyes  as  an  alarmist, 
“ but  he  does  wish  to  call  the  attention  of  the 
“ liquor  trade  to  the  strides  made  by  Prohibition 
“ in  various  States,  and  the  support  sumptuary 
“laws  are  receiving  from  the  courts.  State  and 
“Federal.  * * * Brewers,  distillers,  wholesale 
“ and  retail  dealers — all  men  engaged  in  the 
*“  traffic — stop  your  jealousies  and  petty  quarrels. 
“ You  are  on  the  eve  of  a great  battle.”  It 
is  not,  indeed,  too  much  to  say  that  the  concen- 
tration of  effort  at  present  among  the  liquor  deal- 
ers, in  their  organized  relations,  is  to  clieck  the 
growth  of  prohibitory  legislation. 

Placing  this  fact  alongside  the  other  fact,  that 
every  total  abstinence  organization  of  any  promi- 
uence  in  the  country,  with  the  single  exception  of 
the  Father  Mathew  Total  Abstinence  Union 
(Roman  Catholic),  has  declared  for  Prohibition, 
and  is  most  strenuous  in  the  declaration  in  those 
very  States  in  which  the  law  is  in  force.  It  is  true 
that  some  very  highly  esteemed  leaders  of  opinion, 


188  LEGAL  AND  MORAL  RESULTS  OF  PROHIBITION, 


who  are  regarded  as  earnest  foes  of  intemperance, 
openly  antagonize  the  prohibitory  policy;  but  such 
as  these  are  not  found  in  States  where,  as  in 
Maine,  Kansas,  and  Iowa,  the  actual  operations  of 
the  law  are  seen  and  felt.  In  these  three  States 
especially,  every  temperance  organization  and 
almost  every  Church  denomination  stands  by  the 
law  as  one  whose  effects  are  of  great  value  to  the 
moral  and  industrial  interests  of  the  community. 

8.  Liegal  and  Moral  Results  of  Prohibition. 

The  reason  for  the  tenacity  with  which  temper 
ance  men  and  women  cling  to  prohibitory  law  even 
when  it  is  not  well  enforced,  and  the  unanimity 
with  which  it  is  opposed  by  the  liquor  dealers,  may 
be  found  in  two  effects  which  invariably  attend  . 
the  passage  of  the  law.  These  may  be  termed  the 
effect  legal,  and  the  effect  moral. 

The  effect  legal  consists  in  this,  that  a prohibi-" 
tory  law,  as  soon  as  it  goes  upon  the  statute-booksi 
removes  from  the  traffic  all  claim  to  the  protection  j 
of  the  courts.  It  has  become  at  once  an  outlaw,^' 
and  has  no  right  to  appeal  to  the  courts  to  enforceN^ 
the  payment  of  debts  made  for  purposes  of  the  traf-  ' 
fic.  Under  prohibitory  law  and  the  enactments  usu-  i 
ally  accompanying  it,  liquor  (except  for  certain  spe- 
cific purposes)  is  deprived  of  its  property  rights, 
and  is  at  the  mercy  of  the  public  or  its  officials. 
And  when,  as  in  Kansas,  Iowa,  and  Maine,  any 
citizen  is  given  the  right,  under  the  injunction 
law,  to  institute  proceedings  for  the  abatement  of 


LEGAL  AND  MORAL  RESULTS  OF  PROHIBITION.  1S9 


the  saloon,  the  brewery,  or  the  distillery  as  a nui- 
sance, the  basis  upon  which  the  traffic  stands  be- 
comes one  of  the  utmost  uncertainty. 

Even  though  the  law  is  not  enforced,  the  busi- 
ness becomes  so  uncertain  in  its  rights,  that  in- 
stead, as  now,  of  being  one  of  the  most  attractive 
to  capital,  it  is  likely  to  become  one  of  the  most 
repellant.  The  expansion  of  the  traffic  is  now 
due  almost  entirely  to  the  wholesale  dealers,  dis- 
tillers, and  brewers,  who,  with  capital  to  invest, 
are  continually  establishing  new  saloons,  taking  a 
mortgage  on  the  fixtures  and  suppplying  the 
stock  on  credit.  Anything  that  checks  this  flow 
of  capital  into  the  business,  by  depriving  it,  when 
so  invested,  of  all  claim  on  the  protection  of  the 
courts,  is  sure  to  strike  a heavy  blow  at  the  busi- 
ness. This  a prohibitory  law  invariably  does. 

It  is  this  outlawing  that  seems  to  be  most  dreaded 
by  the  liquor  dealers.  The  leading  distiller  of 
Nebraska,  in  a confidential  letter  written  January 
7,  1888,  in  reply  to  questions  coming,  as  he  sup- 
posed, from  a liquor  dealer  in  New  York,  said 
among  other  things  : 

“We  have  had  a great  deal  of  business  in  the 
State  of  Iowa,  both  before  it  was  Prohibition 
and  since,  and  we  can  say  positively  there  is 
very  little  satisfaction  in  doing  business  in  that 
State  now.  Ever  so  often  the  goods  are  seized 
and  it  causes  a great  deal  of  delay  and  trouble 
to  get  them  released  ; and  there  is  a fear  of  not 
getting  money  for  the  goods,  and  all  the  forms 


140  LEGAL  AND  MORAL  RESULTS  OF  PROHIBITION. 

we  have  to  go  through  make  it  very  annoying 
business.  It  is  like  running  a railroad  under 
ground.  You  don’t  know  where  you  are  going 
or  what  is  ahead.” — Letter  from  P.  E.  Her  of 
Omaha. 

The  question  is  often  asked  whether  it  would  be 
possible  to  enforce  a prohibitory  law  in  such  a 
city  as  New  York  or  Chicago.  Those  who  ask 
this,  in  an  incredulous  tone,  fail  to  consider  fully 
the  importance  to  any  business  of  its  legal  stand- 
ing, and  particularly  if  it  be  a business  done  to  a 
great  extent  on  a credit  basis.  Even  with  every 
official  in  connivance  with  the  traffic,  and  not  a 
hand  lifted  for  enforcement  of  the  law,  a prohibi- 
tory enactment  is  still  certain  to  have  an  immediate 
and  damaging  effect  on  the  business  and  on  the 
flow  of  capital  into  it. 

Two  instances,  one  in  Kansas  and  one  in  Iowa, 
are  sufficient  to  illustrate  this.  In  Topeka,  the 
capital  of  Kansas,  the  saloons  continued  open  for 
four  years  after  the  enactment  of  the  law.  But 
almost  in  a single  hour  came  the  death-blow  of 
the  traffic  in  the  determined  action  of  Judge 
Martin,  who  charged  the  Grand  Jury  to  bring  in 
indictments  not  only  against  the  liquor  sellers  but 
againt  the  owner  of  buildings  in  which  the  liquor 
was  sold.  Twenty  men,  so  it  was  asserted  at  the 
time,  left  the  city  on  the  night  train  to  avoid 
arrest,  and  the  next  morning  but  two  saloons 
could  be  found  open  in  the  city.  From  that  day, 


LEGAL  AND  MORAL  RESULTS  OF  PROHIBITION.  141 


almost,  the  traffic  became  a thing  of  the  past  in 
Topeka. 

In  Sioux  City,  Iowa,  the  law  had  been  openly 
defied,  no  effort  at  concealment  even  being  made. 
The  officials  of  the  city  and  the  entire  secular  press 
upheld  this  defiance  of  the  law  and  opposed  any 
effort  to  enforce  it.  The  public  sentiment  of  the 
city,  that  portion  at  least  which  found  expression, 
was  in  sympathy  with  the  violators  of  law,  and  a 
public  request  was  made,  signed  by  a large 
number  of  the  representative  business  men,  that 
no  attempt  be  made  to  disturb  the  existing  con- 
dition of  things.  Yet  with  such  an  unfavorable 
state  of  things,  a mere  handful  of  determined  men 
and  women,  with  Rev.  George  C.  Haddock  at 
their  head,  and  with  the  injunction  law  of  the 
State  behind  them,  began  proceedings,  and,  in 
spite  of  public  sentiment  and  official  opposition, 
soon  wrought  terror  to  the  entire  traffic  in  that 
city.  It  was  as  much  in  desperation  as  in  hate, 
that  the  assault  was  made  by  saloon  keepers  on 
Mr.  Haddock,  resulting  in  his  murder.  But  the 
proceedings  still  went  on  and  resulted  in  closing 
every  saloon  in  Sioux  City. 

It  has  been  sometimes  urged  that  the  repeal  of 
license  lawjs,  and  the  absence  of  all  special  legis- 
lation, would  leave  the  saloon  open  to  prosecution 
as  a common  nuisance.  In  that  event,  however, 
the  nuisance  in  each  case  would  have  to  be 
proven  : the  mere  sale  of  liquor  would  not  neces- 
sarily constitute  a nuisance.  But  under  prohibi- 


142  LEGAL  AND  MORAL  RESULTS  OF  PROHIBITION. 


tory  laws  such  as  prevail  in  Mttine,  Kansas  and 
Iowa,  the  sale  of  liquor,  or  its  manufacture,  is 
held  by  the  Legislature  to  cl- jstitute  a nuisance, 
and  the  validity  of  such  laws  has  been  affirmed  by 
tlie  Supreme  Court  of  the  Nation. 

Herein  lies  the  crowning  merit  of  irrohihitory  law, 
in  that  it  makes  it  possible,  under  the  nuisance 
clause,  to  fight  the  saloons  one  at  a time. 

Under  a license  law  the  saloons  of  a State  stand 
together,  organized  and  legalized.  To  make  any 
changes  in  the  law  for  the  purpose  of  restriction, 
it  becomes  necessary  to  contend  against  the 
moneyed  and  political  power  of  the  traffic  in  the 
entire  State.  To  strike  one  saloon  effectual!}', 
one  must  strike  all,  under  present  conditions.  A 
prohibitory  law,  once  obtained,  with  the  injunc- 
tion clause  added,  changes  this  condition  of 
things,  and  makes  it  possible  to  fight  one  saloon 
at  a time. 

A series  of  events  transpiring  in  the  city  of 
Brooklyn  illustrate  present  conditions.  An  Excise 
League  was  formed  in  that  city  a few  years  ago, 
whose  object  was  to  secure  the  enforcement  of 
laws  already  on  the  statute  books  of  the  State. 
The  League  was  non-partisan,  had  large  resources 
behind  it,  and  public  sentiment  as  well.  It  prose- 
cuted the  saloons,  one  at  a time,  for  violations  of 
Uthe  excise  laws  forbidding  sales  on  Sunday  and 
to  minors.  In  ninety-four  successive  cases  in 
the  first  year,  the  evidence  of  violation  was  com- 
plete and  the  license  was  revoked  ; but  in  each 


,EGAL  AND  MORAL  RESULTS  OF  PROHIBITION.  143 


case  a new  license  was  issued  at  once,  frequently 
within  twenty-four  hours,  by  the  Excise  Board, 
and  not  one  of  the  ninety-four  saloons  was 
actually  closed.  The  political  power  of  the  three 
thousand  organized  saloons  of  the  city  was 
undoubtedly  the  reason  for  this  travesty  of  law. 

The  League  soon  found  that  in  striking  one 
saloon  they  were  striking  the  three  thousand 
saloons,  and  accepting  the  necessity,  great  pub- 
lic mass-meetings  were  held,  and  thousands  of 
dollars  were  contributed,  and  such  orators  as 
Henry  Ward  Beecher,  Dr.  Howard  Crosby,  and 
Dr.  McGlynn  aroused  the  sentiment  of  the  city 
against  any  increase  in  the  number  of  saloons, 
Again  a seeming  triumph  was  secured.  The  next 
applicant  for  a license,  in  a prominent  part  of 
the  city,  was  refused  by  the  Excise  Board.  But 
this  triumph  also  was  short  lived.  Resort  was  had 
to  the  State  Legislature,  and  through  the  political 
power  of  the  thirty  thousand  saloons  of  the  State, 
the  mandamus  law  was  secured,  giving  applicants 
for  license  the  right  to  appeal  to  the  courts  when 
license  was  refused.  The  result  was  that  the  new 
saloon  was  soon  open  in  Brooklyn,  and  has  remained 
open  ever  since.  The  League  learned  then  that 
to  strike  at  one  saloon  meant  to  strike  at  the 
thirty  thousand  saloons  of  the  State  ; had  they 
carried  the  contest  that  far,  they  might  have 
found  that  they  were  compelled  to  fight  the  two 
hundred  thousand  saloons  of  the  Nation. 

The  god  Thor,  when  visiting  the  country  of  the 


144  LEGAL  AND  MORAL  RESULTS  OF  PROHIBITION. 


giants,  to  compete  with  them  in  feats  of  strength, 
was  given  the  task  of  lifting  from  the  floor  what 
seemed  to  be  nothing  but  a large  cat.  The  exer- 
tion of  all  his  strength,  however,  was  inadequate. 
Afterward,  when  the  spell  was  removed  from  his 
eyes,  so  runs  the  old  myth,  he  perceived  that  what 
seemed  to  be  a cat  was  a huge  serpent  coiled 
around  the  globe.  Those  who  have  undertaken 
the  task  of  closing  one  saloon,  or  preventing  the 
grant  of  a license,  have  frequently  had  a some- 
what similar  revelation. 

The  other  effect  referred  to,  the  effect  moral 
of  prohibitory  law,  is  derived  from  the  educative 
power  of  all  law.  “ Law  and  government,”  says 
Dr.  Arnold,  of  Rugby,  are  the  sovereign  influ- 
“ences  in  human  society.  * * * What  they  sanc- 
“ tion  will  ever  be  generally  considered  innocent, 
“ what  they  condemn  is  thereby  made  a crime.” 
This,  of  course,  is  not  true  of  the  more  enlight- 
ened, who  form  their  moral  standards  not  to  accord 
with  the  laws  of  men  but  with  the  laws  of  God. 
But  undoubtedly  it  is  true  that  with  a large  major- 
ity, conduct  which  the  law  approves  is  looked  upon 
as  right,  even  though  the  corollary  of  this  may  not 
always  be  true,  nameljq  that  conduct  which  the 
law  disapproves  is  looked  upon  as  wrong.  The 
law  is  still  a school-master,  educating  upward  or 
downward  as  the  case  ma}^  be. 

Whether  or  not  a license  law  is  immoral,  is  a 
question  that  has  led  to  some  heated  argument. 
To  a certain  extent  it  is  a question  of  definitions. 


LEGAL  AND  MORAL  RESULTS  OF  PROHIBITION.  145 


The  intent  of  a license  law  was,  doubtless,  in  the 
first  place,  to  check  the  evils  of  intemperance  and 
restrict  the  traffic  in  liquor  witliin  certain  limits. 
To  that  extent  it  was  what  Dr.  Lyman  Abbott 
calls  it,  “ a stigma,”  but  a stigma  not  on  the  traf- 
fic conducted  within  those  limits  set  by  the  law, 
but  that  conducted  outside  those  limits.  The  ef- 
fect of  a license  is  tAvo-fold,  to  stigmatize  the  un- 
licensed traffic  and  to  authorize  that  which  is 
licensed.  It  draws  certain  lines  outside  of  which 
the  saloon  is  to  be  condemned  ; but  within  which 
it  is  to  be  authorized  and  protected  by  law. 

The  ordinary  saloon,  as  it  exists  to-day,  is  with- 
in the  license  limits  and  receives  the  shelter  which 
license  gives.  The  license  may  not  be  in  logic  or 
law,  a sanction,  but  it  is  a permission  ; its  very 
wording  indicates  this.  And  the  actual  effects 
which  result  from  it  are  the  same  as  those  of  a 
sanction.  What  the  average  man  perceives  in  a 
license,  hanging  on  the  wall  of  the  saloon,  is  an 
official  document  giving  to  that  business  a specific 
permission  and  a pledge  of  protection.  It  says, 
in  effect,  that  the  business  is  one  that  requires 
a special  fitness  in  the  one  conducting  it,  and 
that  the  person  holding  the  license  has  that  special 
fitness.  It  is  not  only  an  authorization  of  the 
business,  but  a certificate  of  character  for  the 
proprietor,  such  as  the  butcher,  the  baker,  the  gro- 
cer, does  not  possess.  Call  in  question  the  right 
of  the  saloon-keeper  to  conduct  his  business,  and 
he  points  to  his  license,  for  which  he  has  paid. 

10 


146  LEGAL  AND  MORAL  RESULTS  OF  PROHIBITION. 


The  State  or  county  has  given  him  specific  author- 
ity to  do  this  very  thing ; who  are  you  to  tell  him 
he  has  no  right  to  do  it  ? 

So  far  from  the  license  being  a stigma,  then,  on 
the  man  who  bolds  it,  it  is,  in  effect,  rather  a 
commission  from  the  Government,  constituting  him, 
in  the  eyes  of  the  masses,  a sort  of  governmental 
agent — one  who  is  in  closer  relations  to  the  au- 
thorities than  the  ordinary  tradesman.  It  thus 
confers  on  him,  in  effect,  a dignity  rather  than  an 
odium.  To  sell  without  a license — that  is  wrong  : 
to  sell  with  a license — that  is  all  right,  for  does  not 
the  Government  expresslv  authorize  one  to  do 
this?  Such  is  the  short  anu  quick  reasoning  of 
those  on  whom  the  burdens  of  intemperance  come 
with  the  most  crushing  weight,  and  who  have  the 
least  resources,  either  in  mind,  education,  or  sur- 
roundings, for  resisting  its  influences. 

A prohibitory  law  changes  this;  its  moral  effect, 
just  so  far  as  it  goes,  is  the  reverse  of  this.  It 
declares  the  ordinary  sale  of  liquor  to  be  a crime, 
and  authorizes  no  one  to  carry  it  on.  Whoever 
does  so,  does  it  in  defiance  of  iaw,  and  can  no 
longer  point  to  the  decrees  of  the  State  as  a de- 
fense for  his  business,  and  a declaration  of  its 
necessity.  “ If  men  will  engage  in  this  destructive 
“traffic,”  said  Senator  Frelinghuysen,  “if  they 
“ will  stoop  to  degrade  their  reason  and  reap  the 
“ wages  of  iniquity,  let  them  no  longer  have  the 
“ law-book  as  a pillow,  nor  quiet  conscience  with 
“the  opiate  of  a court  license.” 


LEGAL  AND  MORAL  RESULTS  OF  PROHIBITION.  14,7 


It  can  be  readily  explained  now  why,  even  in 
localities  where  a prohibitory  law  is  very  lightly  en- 
forced, its  repeal  is  still  resisted  so  vigorously  by 
those  known  as  temperance  leaders,  and  sought  so 
constantly  by  the  liquor  dealers.  Attention  was 
called  in  preceding  pages  to  the  uniform  testimony 
given  in  Maine  to  the  Canadian  Commission,  in  re- 
gard to  certain  beneficial  results  that  accompanied 
the  law  even  when  not  enforced.  These  were  the 
result  of  these  two  effects  which  have  been  spoken 
of  as  the  effect  legal  and  the  effect  moral  of  the 
law.  It  may  not  be  enforced  to-day,  but  it  may 
be  to-morrow  or  next  week — who  can  tell  ? A 
sudden  swirl  of  politics,  a sudden  accident  leading 
to  an  uprising  of  sentiment,  a determined  on- 
slaught by  a few  men  or  women,  the  sudden  im 
pulse  of  an  official, — any  of  these  or  a hundred 
other  events  may  lead  to  the  enforcement  of  the 
law  and  to  a total  loss  of  the  capital  invested 
in  the  business.  Investments  made  in  it  to-day 
may  be  worthless  next  year ; it  has  no  assurance 
of  stability.  It  comes  to  be  at  the  mercy  of  public 
officials,  and,  under  the  injunction  law,  at  the 
mercy  even  of  private  citizens.  In  short,  the 
backbone  of  the  business  is  gone  and  its  reputabil- 
ity is  vanished. 

Yet  saying  this,  it  becomes  at  the  same  tirne 
necessary  to  recognize  certain  evil  results  attend- 
ing any  unenforced  law.  It  is  certain  (and  this 
applies  with  at  least  equal  force  to  the  restrictive 
provisions  of  license  laws)  that  a law  flagrantly 


148  THE  DEMAND  FOE  NATIONAL  PEOHIBITION. 


and  continually  defied,  brings  not  only  itself  but 
other  law  into  discredit.  The  “ majesty  of  the  law  ” 
suffers  detriment  in  all  points  where  it  is  flouted 
at  any  one  point.  Premature  Prohibition,  that 
which  is  obtained  before  there  is  reasonable  pros- 
pect of  its  steady  enforcement,  is  certain  to  dis- 
credit itself,  and  is  likely,  in  spite  of  the  damage, 
felt  rather  than  seen,  which  it  inflicts  on  the  traf- 
fic, to  turn  many  of  its  friends  into  opponents. 

It  becomes  important,  therefore,  to  consider  the 
reasons  for  the  frequent  non-enforcement  of  the 
law.  In  general  these  reasons  will  be  found  to 
have  been : 

1.  A lack  of  public  sentiment;  that  is,  a senti- 
ment that  is  not  onlj^  strong  enough  to  enact  the 
law,  but  peremptory  enough  to  demand  its  enforce- 
ment, and  so  organized  and  united  that  it  can 
compel  compliance. 

2.  Official  hostility  to  the  law,  generally  arising 
either  from  personal  antipathy  to  it,  or  from  dread 
of  the  political  power  of  its  opponents. 

3.  The  easy  importation  of  liquor  into  a prohib- 
itory State  from  bordering  States  which  are  not 
prohibitory. 

The  first  two  of  these  reasons  will  be  considered 
in  the  discussion  of  the  party  question.  The 
third  reason  brings  us  face  to  face  with  the  subject 
of  National  Prohibiton. 

9.  The  Demsind  for  Jfational  Prohibition. 

The  American  system  of  Government  ondeav- 


THE  DEMAND  FOU  NATIONAL  PROHIBITION.  149 


ors  to  carry  the  theory  of  autonomy  to  the  farth- 
est extent  compatible  with  public  safety.  Each 
community  takes  care  of  the  things  of  itself. 
The  care  of  highwaj  s,  the  public  provisions  for 
fire,  the  punishment  of  such  misdemeanors  as  fast 
driving,  obstructing  the  side  walks,  letting  animals 
run  at  large,  and  similar  matters  local  in  their 
bearing,  are  relegated  to  the  township,  the  city,  or 
the  county.  Affairs  of  wider  import,  such  as 
regulations  for  railroads  and  canals,  laws  for  cor- 
porations, penalties  for  crime,  even  laws  of  mar- 
riage and  divorce,  are  with  comparatively  few  res- 
ervations on  the  part  of  the  National  Government, 
left  to  each  State  to  determine  for  itself.  Still 
wider-reaching  affairs,  such  as  the  coinage,  laws  of 
extradition,  treaties  with  foreign  powers,  postal 
regulations,  the  banking  system,  and  inter-State 
commerce,  come  within  the  province  of  National 
legislation. 

Under  this  system,  all  those  powers  known  as 
“ police  powers,”  are  retained  by  the  State. 
“ State  legislation,”  says  the  United  States 
Supreme  Court,  “ strictly  and  legitimately  for 
“police  purposes,  does  not  intrench  upon  any 
“ authority  which  has  been  confided,  expressly  or 
“by  implication,  to  the  National  Government.” 
(^Patterson  vs.  Kentucky,  A.  T.  U.  S.  501). 
“ That  [police]  power  belonged  to  the  States 
“when  the  Federal  Constitution  was  adopted. 
“ They  did  not  surrender  it  and  they  all  have  it 
“ now.  It  extends  to  the  entire  property  and  busi- 


150  THE  DEMAND  FOR  NATIONAL  PROHIBITION. 


“ness  within  their  local  jurisdiction.”  (^Fertiliz- 
ing Co.,  vs.  Hyde  Park,  A.  T.  U.  659,667). 
This  disposition  of  authority,  by  which  the  police 
power,  subject  to  certain  conditions  -which  are 
imposed  to  prevent  the  impairment  of  contracts 
and  the  depriving  a citizen  of  property  without 
“due  process  of  law,”  can  not  be  altered  by  Con- 
gress. “ The  courts  must  obey  the  Constitution 
rather  than  the  law-making  department  of  Gov- 
ernment,” and  only  by  an  amendment  to  the  Fed- 
eral Constitution  can  a State  be  deprived  of  those 
police  powers  which  were  reserved  to  it  in  the 
institution  of  the  National  Government.  Inas- 
much as  laws  regulating,  restraining,  or  prohibit- 
ing the  manufacture  and  sale  of  liquor  are  for  the 
most  part  adjudged  by  the  courts  to  be  exercises 
of  this  police  power  reserved  to  the  States,  it  fol- 
lows, of  course,  that  Congress  has  no  right  to 
make  such  laws  for  a single  State  of  the  Union. 
Congress  can,  indeed,  levy  a tax  iqion  either  the 
manufacture  or  sale  of  liquor  and  make  such 
regulations  as  may  be  necessar}'  to  secure  the  pay- 
ment of  the  tax ; but  farther  than  that  it  can 
not  go.  It  has  no  right,  even  by  unanimous  vote, 
to  enact  Prohibition  for  any  of  the  States. 

There  are,  however,  three  powers  possessed  by 
Congress  that  are  of  great  importance  in  their 
bearing  on  this  subject,  namel}" : 

1.  The  power  to  prohibit  the  manufacture  and 
sale  of  liquor  in  the ‘territories,  in  the  District  of 


THE  DEMAND  FOB  NATIONAL  PROHIBITION.  151 


Columbia,  and  in  all  forts,  arsenals  and  military 
posts,  under  Federal  control. 

2.  The  power  over  the  importation  of  liquor 
from  abroad. 

3.  The  power  over  inter-state  commerce. 

Under  the  first  of  these  (Article  iv.  Section  3, 

U.  S.  Constitution)  Congress  has  the  sole  right 
(delegating  it  as  it  sees  fit  to  the  territorial  legis- 
latures) to  regulate  or  prohibit  the  traffic  over  an 
area  of  more  than  one  and  one-half  millions  of 
square  miles,  and  among  a population  equal  to  the 
aggregate  population  of  Maine,  Vermont,  New 
Hampshire,  Rhode  Island,  and  Colorado.  Six  of 
these  territories  are  already,  at  the  time  of  this 
writing,  knocking  for  admission  into  the  Union,* 
and  Congress  has  power  to  prescribe  conditions  on 
which  they  shall  become  States.  The  non-exten- 
sion of  slavery  into  new  States  was  the  entering 
wedge  which  split  the  Nation  into  two  hostile 
camps  in  1861 ; the  same  right  which  Congress 
had  to  prevent  the  extension  of  slavery  into  new 
States,  it  has  now  to  prevent  the  extension  of  the 
liquor  traffic  into  new  States,  should  it  choose  to 
exercise  the  right. 

The  right  to  regulate  importations  from  abroad 
(Article  i.  Section  8,  U.  S.  Constitution)  is  one 
that  can  be  exercised  by  the  Federal  Government 
alone.  The  State,  except  in  a proper  exercise  of 
its  powers  of  quarantine^  is  not  only  debarred 
from  prohibiting  importations  from  abroad,  but 


* Rom-  of  tliese  Ijave  been  admitted  since  writing  tlie  above  sentenee- 


152  THE  DEMAND  FOR  NATIONAL  PROHIBITION. 


importations  from  a neighboring  State  as  welL 
The  right  of  the  State  over  importations  from 
abroad,  begins  only  after  the  first  sale  in  unbroken 
packages.  {Brown  vs.  Maryland,  12  Wheat.  447.) 

The  most  important  power  possessed  ^by  Con- 
gress, however,  in  its  relation  to  the  subject  under 
consideration,  is  the  power  over  inter-state  com- 
merce. {Article  i.  Section  8,  U.  8.  Constitution.') 
Recent  developments,  indeed,  indicate  that  on  the 
exercise  of  this  power  may  depend,  to  a large 
extent,  the  ultimate  success  of  every  prohibitor}' 
law  enacted  by  the  States. 

There  is  not  in  Maine,  Vermont,  or  Kansas,  a 
single  brewery  or  distillery  in  regular  operation. 
The  production  of  liquor  has  been  stopped  almost 
completely  in  those  States,  except  for  the  purposes 
allowed  by  the  law.  Whatever  liquor  is  sold  in 
violation  of  the  law  is  transported  from  adjoining 
States,  and  the  State  officials  have  no  authority  to 
prevent  this.  There  are  in  Boston  wholesale 
liquor  dealers  whose  entire  business  consists  in 
shipments  of  liquor  to  agents  in  Maine.  There 
are  in  Iowa  transportation  companies  whose  busi- 
ness consists  solely  in  transporting  liquor  into  that 
State  from  Missouri.  The  companies  are  known 
to  the  State  officials,  known  to  the  public  at  large, 
and  the  nature  of  their  business  is  known  ; but 
there  is  no  authority  vested  in  the  State  to  prevent 
it.  To  prevent  the  sale  of  liquor  once  within  the 
State  is,  of  course,  a work  much  more  difficult  than 
to  prevent  its  entrance  had  the  State  the  power  to  do 


THE  DEMAND  FOR  NATIONAL  PROHIBITION.  153 


this.  But  by  the  decision  of  the  Supreme  Court, 
March  19,  1888,  the  right  to  do  this  rests  with  the 
Federal  Government  alone. 

That  decision  (see  Appendix,  note  F.)  merits 
more  than  a passing  notice.  The  circumstances 
under  which  it  was  rendered  are  these.  There  is 
a clause  in  the  Iowa  law  forbidding  a railroad,  or 
other  line  of  transportation,  from  bringing  liquor 
into  the  State  unless  a permit  has  first  been  given 
by  the  Auditor  of  the  county  to  which  the  liquor 
is  to  be  shipped.  The  Chicago  and  Northwestern 
Railway,  in  obedience  to  this  law,  refused  to  trans- 
port liquor  into  Iowa  for  a wholesale  house  in  Illi- 
nois. Suit  was  brought  by  the  latter,  and,  the 
case  being  carried  to  the  Supreme  Court,  the 
decision  was  given  that  this  clause  of  the  Iowa 
law  was  unconstitutional,  as  it  conflicted  with  the 
power  vested  in  Congress  alone  to  regulate  inter- 
state commerce.  The  court  conceded  the  right  of 
the  State  to  prohibit  the  traffic  and  the  man- 
ufacture of  liquor  within  its  own  borders, 
but  added  : “ The  right  to  prohibit  sales,  so  far 

“ as  conceded  to  the  States,  arises  only  after  the 
“ act  of  transportation  has  terminated.”  {Bowman 
Bros,  vs  Chicago  and  Northwestern  Bailway.')  This 
act  of  transportation,  the  court  very  plainly  inti- 
mates, does  not  cease  until  after  the  first  sale  of 
the  imported  article  in  unbroken  packages.  A 
case  directly  involving  this  point,  however,  has 
already  been  appealed  to  the  Supreme  Court. 

Whatever  be  the  decision  regarding  the  first 


154  THE  DEMAND  FOR  NATIONAL  PROHIBITION. 


sale  ill  unbroken  packages,  the  right  to  transport 
liquor  into  a prohibitor}^  State  from  any  point  out- 
side of  that  State,  is  one  which  Congress  alone  can 
destroy.  In  all  the  trials  of  prohibitory  law  so  far 
made,  this  has  been  the  chief  source  of  weakness. 
It  is  a comparatively  easy  task  for  the  State  of 
Maine  to  prevent  the  manufacture,  excejit  in  very 
small  quantities,  of  liquor.  The  difficult}'  has 
been  to  prevent  its  sale  and  distribution  after  it 
has  been  transported  from  another  State.  It  is 
not  easy  to  hide  a brewery  or  distillery,  or  to  con- 
ceal their  operations,  except  on  a very  limited 
scale  or  in  the  wilds  of  mountain  districts;  but 
when  the  liquor  has  been  once  introduced  into  a 
city  like  Portland,  it  is  a comparative!}'  easy  thing 
to  conceal  it  in  quart  bottles,  or  even  in  kegs  and 
barrels,  and  distribute  it  throughout  the  State 
in  sjiite  of  the  vigilance  of  the  officers.  It  is 
against  this  great  disadvantage, — a disadvantage 
due  not  to  any  inherent  weakness  in  the  law,  but 
solely  to  the  inaction  of  Congress — that  Maine 
and  Vermont  have  had  to  contend  continuallv, 
and  against  which  Iowa  and  Kansas  have  now  to 
wage  an  unceasing  fight. 

Out  of  this  condition  of  things  has  come  the 
demand  iov  National  Prohibition.  The  question,  in 
view  of  the  recent  decision  of  the  Supreme  Court 
just  referred  to,  can  no  longer  be  considered 
merely  a State  question,  since  no  State  can  ade- 
quately protect  itself  in  this  matter  without  the 
co-operation  of  the  Federal  Government. 


THE  DEMAND  FOR  NATIONAL  PROHIBITION.  165 


There  are  two  ways  in  which  this  co-operation 
might  be  secured.  The  more  effective  way  would 
be,  unquestionably,  through  an  amendment  to  a 
Federal  Constitution,  prohibiting  the  manufac- 
ture, importation,  transportation,  or  sale  of  liquor 
(except  for  certain  specified  uses)  in  the  Nation. 
But  there  are  two  serious  objections  to  this  as  a 
practical  policy.  In  the  first  place,  to  obtain  such 
an  amendment  requires  not  only  a two-thirds 
vote  of  Congress  to  submit  it,  but  a vote  in  its 
favor  by  three-fourths  of  the  State  Legislatures. 
In  the  second  place,  such  an  amendment,  in  addi- 
tion to  the  strong  antagonism  it  would  be  certain 
to  arouse  on  other  grounds,  would  incur  strong 
hostility,  especially  in  the  Southern  States,  as  an 
invasion  upon  the  poiyers  reserved  to  each  State. 
As  has  been  pointed  out,  prohibitory  law  is  an 
exercise  of  the  police  powers  now  belonging  to  the 
States.  Those  powers  are  among  the  most  import- 
ant, if  not  the  most  important,  which  the  State  has 
reserved  to  itself.  A large  proportion  of  citizens 
who  regard  already  with  jealous  alarm  what  they 
call  the  tendency  to  centralization  of  power, 
would  without  doubt  oppose  on  this  ground  alone 
the  transference  to  Congress  of  powers  required 
to  enforce  a prohibitory  amendment  to  the  Federal 
Constitution.  The  necessity  of  such  a course 
would  at  least  have  to  be  plainly  apparent  before 
three-fourths  of  the  State  Legislatures  could  be  in- 
duced to  ratify  such  a procedure.  There  is.  however, 
a method  in  which  national  co-operation  can  be 


156  THE  DEMAND  FOR  NATIONAL  PROHIBITION. 

secured  in  much  less  time,  and  which  would  be 
free  from  these  objections.  The  powers  already 
granted  by  the  Constitution  to  Congress  and  the 
President,  if  used  with  vigor  and  sincerity,  would 
no  doubt  go  very  far  to  remedy  the  defects  of 
State  Prohibition.  Those  powers  have  been 
already  indicated.  They  are  sufficient,  if  exer- 
cised, to  prevent  the  admission  of  any  new  States 
in  which  the  liquor  traffic  is  a legalized  business, 
to  prevent  the  manufacture  or  sale  of  liquor  in 
any  of  the  Territories  or  Federal  posts,  the 
importation  from  abroad,  or  the  transportation 
from  State  to  State.  The  exercise  of  these  powers 
need  not  be  delayed  until  two-thirds  of  Congress 
and  three-fourths  of  the  State  Legislatures  are  won 
to  Prohibition ; but  only  until  a majority  of  Con- 
gress and  the  Chief  Executive  of  the  Nation  are 
ready  heartily  to  second  all  efforts  made  by  the 
States  to  throw  off  this  traffic.  Nor  would  this 
course  prevent  the  adoption  of  a Constitutional 
amendment  later  on,  if  it  was  found  necessary  and 
desirable  to  endow  Congress  with  more  av'ple 
powers. 


PART  III-THE  PARTY. 


Is  A Prohibition  Party  Desirable? 

“In  union  there  is  strength.” 

The  keyword  in  the  formation  of  a political 
party  is — Union.  It  is  a union  of  political  inter- 
ests, of  political  beliefs,  and,  above  all,  of  political 
purposes,  that  constitutes  a party.  Sometimes, 
indeed,  those  whose  ultimate  purposes  are  radi- 
cally different  may  form  a temporary  coalition,  for 
the  accomplishment  of  an  immediate  purpose 
common  to  both,  as  was  seen  a few  years  ago 
when  the  Conservatives  and  Home  Rulers  of  Eng- 
land united  to  unseat  the  Liberals.  But  in  such 
cases  neither  party  loses  its  identity,  and  when 
the  immediate  purpose  is  accomplished  the  coali- 
tion, or  fusion,  ends. 

But  union  on  some  great  moral  or  governmental 
principle  is  not  enough  to  constitute  a basis  for  a 
party.  There  must  be,  in  addition,  union  on  some 
plan  of  action  by  which  that  principle  is  to  be  car- 
ried out.  Otherwise  a party  would  be  but  little 
else  than  a school  of  social  philosophy. 

The  most  frequent  and  natural  division  of  part- 
ies in  a popular  government  is  into  Conservatives 
157 


158 


THE  PARTY. 


and  Progressists — those  who  are  resisting  change 
and  those  who  are  seeking  it.  But  inasmuch  as 
the  nature  of  the  change  sought  by  the  latter 
varies  from  time  to  time,  the  basis  of  party  union 
changes,  and  with  it  to  a greater  or  less  extent, 
the  constitution  of  both  parties,  their  methods  of 
action,  and  their  leadership.  In  constitutional 
monarchies,  such  as  England  and  Germany,  the 
Conservative  party  is,  as  a rule,  the  one  that 
upholds  the  prerogatives  of  the  throne,  while  its 
rival  seeks  to  curtail  them.  This  gives  to  parties 
in  those  countries  a continuity  and  stability  which 
they  do  not  have  in  a Republic  such  as  America 
or  France,  though  even  in  constitutional  monarch- 
ies the  changes  in  parties  amount  sometimes  to  lit- 
tle less  than  a complete  reorganization.  In  Eng- 
land for  instance  the  lines  of  division  between 
parties  change  at  times  in  a most  striking  manner, 
when  some  great  agitation,  such  as  the  one  over 
the  corn-laws  a generation  ago  or  the  one  over 
Home  Rule  in  the  last  few  years,  re-divides  voters 
along  new  lines  of  cleavage. 

In  America  the  changes  in  political  parties  have 
been  more  radical,  an  old  party  having  on  several 
occasions  died  outright  and  a new  party  having 
arisen.  Yet  even  here  the  party  that  represents, 
for  the  most  part,  the  conservative  element — the 
Democratic  party — while  it  has  changed  its  name 
twice,  has  not,  from  the  birth  of  the  Republic,  lost 
its  identity  of  organization.  It  began,  as  the 
anti-Federalist  party,  by  resisting  the  adoption  of 


THE  PARTY. 


169 


the  Constitution,  and  it  has  been,  generally  speak- 
ing, a party  of  resistance  to  change  ever  since. 
Nearly  every  amendment  to  the  Constitution, 
every  increase  of  Federal  authority,  and  almost 
every  marked  departure  or  development  in 
National  polity  (such  as  the  protective  tariff,  the 
alien  and  sedition  laws,  the  national  banking  sys- 
tem, the  abolition  of  slavery,  the  reconstruction 
measures,  the  policy  of  internal  improvements  by 
the  Federal  government,  the  resumption  of  specie 
payment)  has  been  resisted  by  the  same  party. 
In  all  this,  the  party  has  been  on  the  conservative 
side,  and  has  been  true  to  its  first  traditions  of 
resistance  to  the  enlargement  of  Federal  powers. 

It  has  been  different  with  the  parties  that  rep- 
resented the  progressive  elements  of  the  nation. 
They  have  not  been  mere  continuations  one  of 
another,  under  new  names,  but  each  has  been  a 
new  birth,  a new  organization,  characterized  by  a 
new  name,  new  leadership  frequently,  new  pur- 
poses. The  old  Federalist  party  died  twenty  years 
before  the  Whig  party  was  born,  and  the  Whig 
party  preserved  its  organization  and  identity 
(though  not  its  name)  for  two  presidential  terms 
after  the  birth  of  the  Republican  party.  The  rea- 
son for  these  new  births  among  parties  is  an  obvi- 
ous one.  A party  that  has  been  built  up  around 
one  common  centre  as  its  basis  of  union  can  not 
readily  adopt  a-new  and  entirely  different  basis  of 
union  without  danger  of  dissolution.  It  cannot 
readjust  itself  when  the  needs  of  progress  require 


160 


THE  PARTY. 

it.  A party,  as  a man,  grows  conservative  with 
age.  As  a matter  of  fact,  the  Federalist  party 
perished  because  it  could  not  or'  would  not  longer 
meet  the  demands  of  the  progressive  elements  of 
the  Nation.  The  Whig  party  died  for  the  same 
reason,  and  there  are  those  who  are  already  pre- 
dicting the  death  of  the  Republican  party  for  its 
inability  to  meet  the  growing  demands  of  the  pro- 
gressive elements  of  the  Nation.  In  1854  Horace 
Greeley,  noting  this  tendency  of  parties  to  grow 
* conservative,  and  their  consequent  indisposition 
to  give  championship  to  new  and  important  reforms 
lest  their  unity  should  thereby  be  endangered, 
advocated  in  vigorous  terms  (See  N.  Y.  Tribune^ 
July  18,  1854)  the  breaking  up  of  parties  at  least 
every  twelve  years,  if  not  at  the  close  of  each 
presidential  campaign,  and  their  reformation  along 
the  new  lines  called  for  by  the  new  issues. 

Has  the  time  come  in  the  progress  of  the  nation, 
for  a new  party,  and  if  so,  is  Prohibition  the  issue 
that  is  to  determine  the  new  party’s  charaeter  and 
dominant  purpose  ? The  answer  will  depend 
largely  upon  another  question,  namely:  Whether 
Prohibition  itself  demands  a new  party  ? 

One  thing  may  be  assumed  at  the  outset  of  the 
investigation,  and  that  is  that  somewhere  and 
somehow  the  foes  of  the  saloon  must  effect  a 
union.  It  must  be  not  merely  a union  on  general 
purposes,  but  a union  of  action  as  well.  All  good 
citizens  desire  to  see  intemperance  lessened,  but 
until  this  union  of  desire  develops  into  union  of 


I 


THE  PARTY. 


161 


action,  it  can  accomplish  nothing  in  the  way  of 
political  results. 

This  union  must,  moreover,  be  a iinion  at  the 
ballot-box.  On  this  point  there  will  be  dissent. 
The  advent  of  this  question  into  politics  has  been 
deplored  by  many  as  an  unwise  policy.  Moral 
suasion,  it  is  urged,  is  the  proper  method  for  a 
moral  reform  such  as  temperance,  and  this  is  un- 
doubtedly true  so  far  as  the  drinker  is  concerned. 
His  appetite  can  not  be  changed  by  statute  law, 
nor  his  will-power  strengthened.  Moral  suasion, 
through  the  home,  the  Church,  the  school,  and 
organized  societies,  may  be  the  preferable  way  to 
deal  with  the  man  who  drinks ; but  not  so  with 
the  saloon.  To  reach  the  saloon,  to  deal  with  the 
traffic,  the  law  that  is  behind  it  must  be  reached 
and  the  attitude  of  Government  must  be  changed. 
But  to  do  this,  to  change  the  law  in  the  face  of 
organized  political  opposition  to  any  such  change, 
requires  that  there  shall  be  a demand  made  at  the 
ballot-box. 

For  let  one  stand  on  a platform  or  in  a pulpit 
and  make  his  demand  for  prohibitory  law  in  words 
however  eloquent,  and  Government  pays  no  heed 
to  the  demand  and  makes  rro  record  of  the  opin- 
ion expressed.  Let  the  same  demand  be  made 
through  the  papers,  in  conversation,  any  and  every- 
where, for  three  hundred  and  sixty-four  days  in 
the  year,  and  the  same  result  follows.  It  is  not 
that  Government  is  oblivious  to  the  desires  of 
those  thus  speaking,  that  no  official  note  is  made 
11 


162 


THE  PARTY. 


of  opinions  so  expressed  ; but  because  there  is  but 
one  method  by  which  each  individual  is  to  register 
liis  opinions  and  desires  in  regard  to  matters  of 
public  policy.  That  method  is  the  ballot-box, 
and  every  opinion  registered  there  by  the  private 
citizen  is  placed  on  the  records  of  the  State,  and 
none  other. 

It  is  true  that  in  ordinary  elections  the  ballot 
is  cast  for  men,  not  directly  for  measures;  but, it 
is  generally  understood,  of  course,  that  each  can- 
didate is  for  the  most  part  voted  for  as  the  repre- 
sentative of  a certain  policy  which  is  embodied  in 
the  platform  on  which  he  stands  or  in  the  purposes 
of  those  iiominating  him.  Let  a citizen  express 
his  opinion  in  favor  of  Prohibition  every  day  in 
the  year,  and  then  vote  a ballot  that  represents 
either  silence  on  this  question  or  opposition  to  it, 
and  the  only  record  made  b}^  Government  is  the 
record  of  this  silence  or  opposition. 

How  then  shall  there  be  union  at  the  ballot-box 
of  the  foes  of  the  saloon  ? Three  plans  for  such 
union  have  been  proposed  in  addition  to  the  new 
party  plan.  They  are  as  follows  : 

1.  By  massing  in  one  of  the  old  parties,  and 
moulding  its  policy. 

2.  By  forming  a balance-of-power  party,  which, 
while  making  no  nominations  of  its  own,  shall 
vote  for  those  candidates  on  old-party  tickets  who 
are  best  disposed  to  this  reform. 

3.  By  union  in  non-partisan  organizations  for  the 
adoption  of  Prohilntion  in  a non-partisan  election. 


CAN  THE  REFORM  BE  ACCOMPLISHED.  163 


I . Can  the  Reform  be  Accomplished  Throng'll 
hliier  Old  Party? 

The  first  of  these  methods  is,  as  a rule,  the  one 
first  to  he  adopted  by  the  advocates  of  a new 
issue.  Whether  or  not  the  method  succeeds,  de- 
pends entirely  on  the  nature  of  the  issue,  and  its 
relation  to  the  basis  of  union  on  which  the  party 
has  been  organized  and  developed. 

To  illustrate : The  Republican  party  was 
formed  by  a union  of  the  elements  opposed  to  the 
extension  of  the  slave-power.  This  was  its  basis 
of  union.  To  it  came  Abraham  Lincoln,  a pro- 
tectionist, its  second  candidate  for  President,  and 
Hannibal  Hamlin,  a free-trader,  its  second  candi- 
date for  Vice-President.  Men  of  widely  different 
views  were  brought  into  union  on  this  one  domi- 
nant issue,  or  the  one  growing  immediately  out 
of  it — namely,  the  preservation  of  the  Union. 
Thus  formed,  the  party  has  been  able  to  meet  and 
cope  successfully  with  all  the  issues  growing  out 
of  that  first  dominant  issue  that  gave  it  birth.  It 
prosecuted  the  civil  war  to  a successful  close.  It 
took  up,  one  b}  one,  the  reconstruction  measures 
without  endangering  the  unity  of  its  organization. 
It  enfranchised  the  negroes,  redeemed  the  paper 
currency  issued  for  war  purposes,  paid  the  war 
debts,  including  huge  pension  bills,  still  following 
the  logical  course  of  development  from  its  first 
position.  None  of  these  issues  had  in  it  any  dan- 
ger to  the  party’s  original  basis  of  union. 

Rut  it  has  reached,  of  late  years,  a point  whei'e 


164  CAN  THE  EEFORH  BE  ACCOMPLISHED. 

the  new  issues  presenting  themselves  are  entirely 
independent  of  the  war  and  its  developments,  and 
it  begins  to  encounter  at  once  the  dangers  of  di- 
vision in  its  ranks  in  meeting  such  issues.  In  con- 
sequence, it  has  been  forced  to  continue  to  appeal 
to  its  members  in  behalf  of  issues  long  since  past 
and  gone.  Distrust  for  the  leaders  of  the  South 
has  been  kept  alive  assiduously.  Pension  bills 
have  been  augmented  to  greater  and  greater  mag- 
nitude in  each  session  of  Congress.  The  treat- 
ment of  the  negro,  in  his  exercise  of  the  franchise 
in  the  South,  has  been  carefully  held  up  before 
the  members  of  the  party  and  made  the  basis  for 
passionate  appeals  to  their  minds  and  hearts.  But 
not  one  issue  of  National  magnitude  that  has 
grown  out  of  circumstances  apart  from  the  war 
and  its  results,  has  the  party  been  able  to  meet 
with  anything  like  a united  front  and  a single 
purpose.  Civil  Service  Reform  has  been  given  a 
half-hearted  reception  by  many  of  the  leaders  of 
the  party  and  has  met  with  open  opposition  on 
the  part  of  others.  The  growth  of  monopolies 
and  the  increase  of  industrial  problems,  it  has 
been  unable  to  deal  with  as  a party.  The  reforms 
which  the  tariff  confessedly  needs,  it  is  unable  to 
make  without  incurring  the  imminent  risks  of 
party  division.  And  to  the  increasing  demands 
for  legislation  that  shall  check  the  evils  of  the  sa- 
loon system,  the  party  has  found  itself  helpless  to 
respond.  It  is  a mistake  to  suppose  that  this  ina- 
bility is  merely  the  result  of  cowardice  or  lack  of 


CAN  THE  BEFOEM  BE  ACCOMPLISHED.  165 


moral  sentiment  in  the  party.  Neither  statement 
would  be  true  ; but  it  is  a necessary  consequence 
following  from  the  law  of  the  party’s  formation, 
in  accordance  with  which  men  of  all  kinds  of 
views  and  all  kinds  of  interests  regarding  these 
new  issues,  were  united  on  the  one  issue  dominant 
a generation  ago. 

The  issue  of  Prohibition  is  not  one  related  in 
any  way  to  the  issues  that  formed  the  Republican 
party.  The  Prohibitionist  and  the  anti-Prohibi- 
tionist,  the  total  abstainer  and  'the  drinker,  the 
clergyman  and  the  bar-keeper,  were,  in  the  days  of 
the  party’s  formation,  invited  and  welcomed  to  its 
fellowship.  One  was  as  true  a member  of  the 
party  as  the  other,  provided  only  that  he  were  as 
true  to  the  dominant  issue. 

But  there  is  a still  more  formidable  difficulty  in 
the  way  of  success  in  thus  appealing  for  a union 
of  the  foes  of  the  saloon  in  either  of  the  two  old 
parties,  and  that  is  in  human  nature  itself,  and 
the  laws  that  govern  it  in  political  life.  The  foes 
of  the  saloon  have  been  divided  between  both  old 
parties.  In  which  of  the  two  can  they  be  induced 
to  unite? 

The  analogies  of  the  past  give  us  light  here. 
When  the  question  of  slavery  was  forced  to  the 
front  in  politics,  it  was  done  despite  the  efforts  of 
the  leaders  in  both  the  parties  of  that  day,  be- 
cause neither  party  was  prepared  to  meet  the 
issue.  That  issue  found  in  both  parties  the 
friends  as  well  as  the  foes  of  slavery.  It  became 


166  CAN  THE  REFORM  BE  ACCOMPLISHED. 


necessary  to  bring  the  foes  of  slavery,  somewhere 
and  somehoAv,  into  unity  of  action.  Salmon  P. 
Chase  was  a Democrat ; Charles  Sumner  was  a 
Whig  ; but  both  were  enemies  of  the  institution  of 
slavery.  The  political  union  of  such  as  they  and 
their  followers,  was  one  of  the  first  steps  neces- 
sary to  the  success  of  their  desires.  Had  Mr. 
Chase  insisted  that  Mr.  Sumner  and  his  followers 
should  unite  with  himself  and  his  followers  inside 
the  Democratic  party,  or  had  IMr.  Sumner  insisted 
that  the  place  of  union  should  be  within  the  Whig 
party,  the  probabilities  are  that  they  or  their  fol- 
lowers, had  they  lived  so  long,  might  have  been 
contending  over  the  matter  unto  this  day. 

Union  was  brought  about  in  no  such  way. 
Neither  demanded  that,  while  giving  up  nothing 
himself,  the  other  give  up  all  his  political  associations 
and  turn  his  back  on  all  his  other  political  beliefs. 
Instead,  each  said  to  the  other,  in  effect  : Give  up 
your  old  party,  and  I will  give  up  mine.  Step 
down  from  your  old  political  platform  and  I will 
step  down  from  mine.  Meet  me  half-way  in  a 
new  political  organization,  formed  on  this  one 
issue  as  the  dominant  and  dividing  issue,  and  I 
will  meet  you.  The  result  is  a matter  of  history. 

A condition  very  analogous  to  this  is  seen 
today.  The  question  of  Prohibition  has  been 
forced  to  the  front  despite  the  efforts  of  leaders  in 
both  old  parties  to  prevent  it,  because  it  finds 
neither  of  those  parties  ready  to  meet  it  without 
dano-er  of  internal  division.  It  finds  the  friends 

o 


CAN  THE  KEFORM  BE  ACCOMPLISHED.  167 

as  well  as  the  foes  of  the  saloon  in  both  old 
parties,  and  the  friends  are  sufficiently  numerous 
in  each  to  keep  the  party  in  a state  of  inactivity. 
Somewhere  and  somehow  a union  of  the  foes  of  the 
saloon  must  be  effected,  and  it  must  be  a union  not 
merely  in  purpose  but  in  action. 

Senator  Colquitt  and  Senator  Reagan  for 
instance  are 'avowed  advocates  of  Prohibition. 
Senator  Frye  and  Senator  Blair  are  equally 
avowed  advocates  of  Prohibition.  But  the  for- 
mer two  are  Democrats,  and  the  latter  two 
Republicans.  If  they  effect  a union  of  their 
energies  and  influence  in  either  of  the  two  old 
parties,  two  must  give  up  all  their  political  associa- 
tions and  many  political  beliefs,  while  the  others 
give  up  nothing  and  gain  everything. 

In  the  prohibitory  amendment  campaigns  of 
1887,  two  being  in  Southern  States — Texas  and 
Tennessee — and  two  in  Northern  States — Michigan 
and  Oregon — there  were  cast  445,383  votes  in  the 
aggregate  for  Prohibition.  Of  these,  246,774 
were  cast  in  the  two  Southern  States  and  198,609 
were  cast  in  the  two  Northern  States.  A very 
large  proportion  of  those  in  the  South  were  cast 
by  Democrats,  a large  proportion  of  those  in  the 
North  by  Republicans.  Any  contemplated  uni.  ii 
of  these  voters  in  either  of  these  two  old  parlies 
must  mean  therefore  on  the  one  side  the  sacri- 
fice of  nothing,  on  the  other  side  the  repudiation 
of  political  views  and  associations  of  a lifetime. 
For  either  side  to  make  such  a demand  of  the 


16b 


CAN  THE  REFORM  BE  ACCOMPLISHED. 


other  is  to  give  the  latter  a good  reason  to  ques- 
tion their  sincerity  of  purpose  or  their  sense  of 
justice. 

The  claim  is  made  at  times  by  Republicans  in 
the  North  and  by  Democrats  in  the  South  that  a 
large  majority  of  their,  party  is  so  strongly  in 
favor  of  restrictive  legislation  for  the  liquor  traffic, 
that  whatever  laws  are  found  to  be  needful  may 
be  secured  in  due  course  of  time  through  their 
party.  This  conclusion,  however,  by  no  means 
follows.  While  it  as  probably  true  that  in  each 
party,  in  one  of  the  two  sections,  the  sentiment  of 
the  majority  is  favorable  to  strong  restrictive 
legislation,  it  is  equally  true  that  in  each  of  these 
parties  there  is  a large  and  active  minority  unfavor- 
able to  such  legislation,  and  who  would  resent 
any  serious  attempt  in  this  direction  by  immedi- 
ate withdrawal  from  the  party.  It  is  sufficient, 
in  order  to  appreciate  the  force  of  this,  to  remem- 
ber the  large  German  vote  in  the  Republican  party, 
and  the  large  Irish  vote  in  the  Democratic  party, 
most  of  whom  would  not,  at  present,  tolerate  any 
action  by  their  party  in  the  direction  of  prohibi- 
tory law*.  This  minority  is  large  enough  to 
defeat,  by  a bolt,  either  party  in  all  the  close 
States,  such  as  New  York,  Indiana,  Connecticut, 
New  Jersey,  Massachusetts,  Illinois,  and  Ohio  ; 
and  defeat  in  these  close  States  means  of  course 
defeat  for  either  party  in  a National  contest. 

*■  By  the  Census  of  1880  the  foreign-born  males  of  voting  age  num 
bered  over  three  millions,  about  one-third  being  German  and  one 
third  Irish. 


CAN  THE  ROFORM  BE  ACCOMPLISHED. 


169 


It  would  be  impossible,  therefore,  for  either 
party  to  take  a determined  stand  for  Prohibition 
without  incurring  at  least  temporary  and  in  all 
probability  continued  defeat.  The  only  salvation 
for  a party  in  that  case  would  be  to  win  over 
from  its  rival  recruits  equal  to  the  number  of  its 
desertions.  Now  it  so  happens  that  the  temper- 
ance sentiment  that  is  in  the  Republican  party  is, 
to  far  the  greatest  extent,  in  the  North,  and  that  in 
the  Democratic  party  is  in  the  South.  The 
Republican  party,  therefore,  in  the  event  of  its 
alienating  a million  or  two  of  its  members  by  an 
anti-saloon  attitude,  would  have  to  look  to  the 
South  for  the  necessary  reinforcements  to  pre- 
serve it  from  continued  disaster  at  the  polls, 
while  the  Democratic  party  would  be  forced  to 
look  to  the  North  almost  entirely  for  its  reinforce- 
ments under  similar  circumstances.  To  state  the 
case  is  sufficient  to  indicate  its  difficulties.  No 
student  of  recent  American  history  but  knows 
the  strength  of  the  memories  and  the  prejudices 
that  would  prevent  either  party  from  making  its 
losses  good  under  such  conditions.  The  very  ele- 
ment in  the  South  that  is  most  attached  to  the 
cause  of  Prohibition  is  the  one  most  inimical 
to  Republican  ascendancy,  and  the  element  most 
strongly  attached  to  the  same  eanse  in  the  North 
is  at  the  same  time  the  element  that  is,  or  at  least 
has  been,  most  strongly  attached  to  the  Republi- 
can party.  A union  of  these  two  elements  seems 
possible,  but  not  in  either  old  party. 


170  CAN  THE  REFORM  BE  ACCOMPLISHED. 

But  has  not  the  Republican  party  espoused  the 
cause  of  Prohibition  in  several  of  the  States 
already,  and  can  it  not,  in  course  of  time,  do  the 
same  in  other  States  without  disaster?  This  ques- 
tion arises  from  a misapprehension.  There  is  not 
one  State  in  the  Union  in  which  either  the  Repub- 
lican or  Democratic  party  ever  espoused  the  prin- 
ciple of  Prohibition  until  after  it  had  been  adopted 
by  the  people  and  become  the  established  law  of 
the  State.  In  Maine,  the  basis  of  union  on  which 
the  Republican  party  was  first  organized  included 
Prohibition  and  Abolition,  but  this  was  in  1854, 
three  years  after  the  adoption  of  Prohibition  by 
the  State.  In  Kansas  and  Iowa,  even  with  the 
overwhelming  majorities  which  that  part}^  had  in 
those  States  a few  years  ago,  it  never  went  so  far 
as  to  espouse  Prohibition.  The  claim  quite  fre- 
quently made  that  the  Republican  party  gave  the 
law  to  those  States,  is  without  basis  of  fact.  It 
did,  indeed,  go  so  far  as  to  submit  to  the  people, 
for  their  decision,  a prohibitory  amendment  in 
each  State,  but  never  placed  itself  on  record  in 
favor  of  the  Amendment.  Prohibition  was 
obtained  in  a non-partisan  election  in  each  State, 
neither  party  taking  any  definite  attitude,  as  a 
party,  in  regard  to  it. 

Neither  the  political  conditions  of  the  Nation 
as  the}^  are  known  to  exist,  nor  the  facts  of 
history  seem,  then,  to  justify  the  expectations 
held  to  by  man}^  that  one  or  the  other  of  the 
old  parties  will  be  developed  into  a strong  anti- 


THE  BALANCE  OF  POWER  PLAN. 


171 


saloon  party  that  shall  combine  in  its  ranks  the 
temperance  sentiment  of  the  Nation  and  sweep  on 
to  a grand  victory. 

2.  The  Balance  of  Power  Plan. 

The  second  method  of  union  proposed  for  the 
foes  of  the  saloon,  is  in  an  independent  organiza- 
tion, a sort  of  balance-of-power  party,  whose  mem- 
bers shall  refuse  to  vote  for  objectionable  candi- 
dates on  either  old-party  ticket,  but  shall  vote  for 
the  best  candidate  irrespective  of  party  affiliations, 
and  where  two  candidates  for  the  same  office  are 
equally  trusted  on  this  question,  voters  shall 
divide  their  votes  between  them  according  to  their 
individual  preferences. 

This  plan,  it  is  urged,  is  the  one  that  is  pursued 
by  the  liquor  dealers,  with  the  result  of  terroriz- 
ing both  old  parties.  By  this  method  they  have 
been  able  largely  to  dictate  nominations.  Why 
can  not  the  temperance  voters,  by  a similar  plan, 
accomplish  equal  results  ? 

The  answer  is  found  in  this  : that  such  a plan 
to  succeed,  requires  that  its  work  be  done  in  secret. 

There  must  be,  in  the  first  place,  an  organized 
body  of  voters  who  will  be  willing  to  act  with 
substantial  unity,  throwing  their  vote  to  this  side 
or  that,  as  their  leaders  direct,  or  as,  by  a majority 
vote,  they  themselves  decide.  This  body  of  voters 
will  consist,  of  course,  in  order  to  accomplish  its 
purpose,  of  both  Democrats  and  Republicans,  who 
will  meet  together,  not  to  make  their  own  nom- 


172 


THE  BALANCE  OF  POWER  PLAN. 


inations  (for  that  would  at  once  constitute  a new 
and  distinct  party),  but  to  decide  which  of  two 
candidates  for  each  office  on  the  old-party  tickets 
they  will  indorse.  This,  of  course,  will  be  deter- 
mined by  vote.  But  straightway  a formidable 
objection  arises.  Tliose  who  have  been  Demo- 
crats, desirous  of  securing  good  nominations  from 
their  party,  have  attended  the  primaries  and  per- 
haps the  nominating  conventions  of  their  party, 
and  by  their  participation  in  these  they  have 
bound  themselves,  as  such  action  is  usually  inter- 
preted, to  support  the  nominations  made.  The 
Republican  members  have  similarly  bound  them- 
selves. How  then,  being  already  bound,  can 
they  again  bind  themselves  to  the  decision  of  a 
new  body  of  men  ? 

The  only  recourse  is  to  refuse  to  recognize  as 
binding  their  participation  in  the  primaries  of 
their  party.  But  if  they  so  refuse,  and  submit 
themselves  to  a new  body,  and  openly  refuse  to 
support  important  nominations  made  by  their  own 
party,  at  once  the  doors  of  future  primaries  are 
closed  against  them,  and  the  bars  are  up  to  all 
political  preferment  at  the  hands  of  their  party. 
The  consequence  is  that  all  who  join  such  an  inde- 
pendent body  of  voters,  at  once,  by  that  act,  sever 
their  old-party  ties  and  render  themselves  unable 
to  participate  in  the  nominations  of  either  old 
party,  while,  by  the  terms  on  which  the  new  organ- 
ization was  formed,  they  are  yet  unable  to  make 
nominatious  of  their  own- 


THE  BALANCE  OF  POWEB  PLAN. 


173 


With  the  liquor  dealers,  it  is  altogether  differ- 
ent. They  do,  indeed,  attend  party  primaries,  but 
if  the  character  of  the  nominations  made  arouses 
their  resentment,  they  do  not  often  meet  together 
and  formally  decide  to  vote  for  the  other  party’s 
candidate.  Instead,  being  a vote  that  has  its 
“ bosses  ” and  follows  their  instructions,  the  work 
is  done  in  secret,  and  while  every  one  knows  what 
was  done,  and  how,  and  why,  no  one,  at  least  none 
of  the  “bosses,”  has  endangered  his  standing  in 
his  party.  For  the  temperance  voters,  therefore, 
to  follow  the  plan  of  the  liquor  dealers  requires, 
first,  a following  that  will  obey  its  “ bosses  ” 
implicitly,  and,  second,  a readiness  to  work  in 
secrecy. 

In  any  such  method  as  this,  moreover,  there  is 
another  great  advantage  on  the  side  of  the  liquor 
dealers,  and  that  is  the  advantage  of  party  inertia. 
They  are  not  seeking  to  reform  the  party,  to 
change  its  attitude  ; but  simply  to  keep  it  from 
making  any  change,  and  the  force  sufficient  to  do 
the  latter  would  be  altogether  insufficient  for  the 
former.  The  vote  of  the  saloon  is  aptly  repre- 
sented by  a boy  standing  in  tbe  middle  of  a 
“ teeter  ” who  determines,  by  throwing  his  weight 
on  one  side  or  the  other,  which  side  shall  go  up  or 
down.  There  is  but  one  thing  to  be  done,  in  order 
to  deprive  the  vote  of  its  present  power,  and  that 
is  to  force  it  from  the  middle  of  the  political 
“ teeter  ” and  compel  it  to  take  one  end,  while 


174 


THE  BALANCE  OF  POWER  PLAN. 


those  opposed  to  the  saloon  take  the  other.  The 
issue  then  can  be  speedily  determined. 

There  is  still  another  serious  objection  that 
might  frequently  arise  under  any  such  method  as 
the  one  now  being  considered.  In  the  larger  cities 
especially,  the  number  of  different  ballots  to  be 
cast  by  each  voter  is  sometimes  as  high  as  nine  or 
ten,  and  these  may  contain  the  names  of  from 
twenty  to  fifty  candidates.  (In  Brooklyn,  in  the 
last  election — 1888 — there  were  eight  different 
ballots  to  be  voted  by  each  voter  in  one-half  the 
wards,  and  nine  in  the  other  half,  beside  a consti- 
tutional amendment  ballot.)  Now  a voter  who  had 
determined  to  vote  for  none  but  candidates  who 
were  opposed  to  the  saloons,  would  be  left  to  his 
own  personal  knowledge,  (unless  special  ballots 
were  prepared  by  some  organization  and  distri- 
buted at  every  polling  place  throughont  election 
day)  in  making  out  his  ballot.  His  personal 
knowledge,  it  is  likely,  would  differ  from  that  of 
another  who  might  be  animated  by  a similar  pur- 
pose. The  names  that  one  might  “scratch,”  the 
other  might  vote  for,  and  vice  versa.  The  result 
would  be  apparent.  Instead  of  union  among  this 
class  of  voters,  their  disunion  would  be  the  most 
complete  possible,  and  the  ballots  the}'  would  cast 
would  be  as  varied  as  the  colors  of  Joseph’s  coat. 

The  plan  for  a balance-of-power  party,  then,  on 
this  issue,  seems  entirely  impracticable  without 
a radical  revolution  in  the  system  of  American 
politics.  It  is  possible  only  on  a small  scale,  or  in 


THE  NON-PARTISAN  PLAN  OF  UNION,  175 


temporary  emergencies,  on  any  issue  that  does 
not  command  a following  blindly  obedient  to  the 
behests  of  its  leaderSo 

3.  The  Non-Partisau  Plan  of  Union. 

There  remains  to  be  considered,  then,  the  third 
plan  of  union  of  the  foes  of  the  saloon,  that  is,  in 
non-partisan  organizations  which  shall  have  refer- 
ence to  this  one  issue  alone,  and  shall  have  noth- 
ing to  do  with  the  relations  of  members  to  political 
parties,  nor  attempt  to  dictate  to  them  the  candi- 
dates for  whom  they  shall  vote.  This  is  the  plan 
advocated  by  Bishop  Merrill,  Dr.  Dorchester,  and 
others,  and  they  point  to  the  non-partisan  contests 
in  Iowa,  Kansas,  Rhode  Island,  and  elsewhere,  as 
furnishing  abundant  argument  in  its  favor. 

There  can  be  no  question  that  this  method  of 
union  is  the  easiest  and  the  quickest  possible. 
The  number  of  voters  who  are  willing  to  join  in  a 
non-partisan  organization  of  this  kind,  which  does 
not  require  them  to  give  up  their  party  affiliations, 
is  many  times  greater,  as  shown  by  the  votes  in 
amendment  contests,  than  the  number  willing  to 
join  a new  party.  The  only  question  to  be  raised 
is,  not  whether  such  a union  is  feasible  and  desir- 
able, but  whether  it  is  sufficient  to  accomplish 
what  needs  to  be  done. 

There  are  but  two  ways  in  which  prohibitory 
legislation  can  be  enacted  into  law  : one  is  by  direct 
act  ot  the  Legislature,  and  the  other,  by  an  amend- 
ment to  the  State  Constitution,  followed  with 


176  THE  NON-PAETISAN  PLAN  OF  UNION. 

enforcing  legislation  enacted  by  the  Legislature. 
For  a Constitutional  amendment  of  any  kind  is 
very  rarely  of  such  a nature  as  to  enforce  itself. 
It  may  forbid  certain  acts,  but  it  does  not  provide 
any  penalty  for  those  committing  them,  nor  place 
upon  any  certain  officials  the  responsibility  for 
seeing  that  the  law  is  obeyed,  nor  make  appropria- 
tions for  the  necessary  outlay  in  enforcing  it. 
Instead,  it  leaves  all  these  points  to  be  attended  to 
by  the  Legislature,  and  to  a great  extent  the  effi- 
ciency of  the  amendment  is  due  to  the  way  in 
which  the  Legislature  performs  its  duty. 

It  is  in  the  adoption  of  a prohibitory  amend- 
ment that  the  non-partisan  organization  comes  into 
play.  The  question  then  is  submitted  to  a direct 
vote  of  the  people.  They  vote  on  the  question, 
not  indirectly  through  candidates,  but  directly, 
yes  or  no,  on  the  amendment  itself.  There  is  no 
requirement  then  for  any  party  organization,  and 
the  custom  has  been  at  all  such  times  for  members 
of  all  parties  who  favor  the  amendment,  to  unite 
irrespective  of  party  lines. 

But  it  is  evident  that  such  a method  of  union  is 
possible  only  where  a direct  vote  is  taken  on  the 
question.  For  our  Government  is  a 
form  of  Government.  It  is  only  in  rare  instances 
tiiat  the  people  legislate  directly ; most  of  their 
legislation  is  done  by  those  wliom  they  send  to 
the  seats  of  legislation  for  that  purpose.  A pro- 
hibitory amendment  is  voted  on  directly  ; but  aU 
subsequent  enforcing  legislation  must  be  obtained 


THE  NON-PARTISAN  PLAN  OE  UNION. 


17T 


through  Legislators,  who  are  elected  in  the  usua' 
way  as  the  candidates  of  parties.  In  fact,  the 
opportunity  of  voting  on  the  amendment  itself  can 
be  obtained  only  through  the  action  of  the  people’s 
representatives.  The  order  of  procedure  is  as 
follows : (1)  The  Legislature  votes  to  submit  the 
amendment  to  a vote  of  the  people ; (2)  the 
voters  cast  their  ballots  for  or  against  it ; if  it  is 
carried  (3)  the  Legislature  proceeds  to  enact  the 
necessary  enforcing  laws. 

The  prohibitory  amendment  in  Maine,  for 
instance,  provides  no  penalties,  does  not  specify 
any  method  of  procedure  in  case  any  one  is  found 
violating  the  law,  in  fact  does  nothing  but  prohibit 
the  manufacture  and  sale  of  liquor,  and  enjoins  on 
the  Legislature  and  the  executive  officers  the 
duty  of  seeing  that  the  Prohibition  is  carried  out. 
The  amendment  itself  contains  just  ninety-one 
words  pthe  laws  enacted  for  its  enforcement  con- 
tain about  seven  thousand  words.  On  none  of 
these  latter  have  the  people  voted  directly,  or  in  a 
non-partisan  way.  All  these  have  been  secured 
through  representatives  of  the  people,  elected  by 
the  usual  party  action. 

We  find,  then,  on  analyzing  this  non-partisan 
plan,  the  following  features  : 

1.  While  it  is  the  most  desirable  plan  at  the 
time  an  amendment  is  pending,  it  can  not  be 
called  into  operation  either  before  that  period,  to 
secure  the  submission  of  an  amendment,  nor  after 
that  period  to  secure  proper  enforcing  legislation, 
12 


178  THE  NOiNT-rAUViSAX  PLAN  OF  UNION. 


and  its  vigorous  execution.  All  that  it  can  do  after- 
ward is  to  petition,  unless  it  is  prepared  to  assume 
partisan  activities.  But  it  is  right  at  this  point, 
namely,  after  the  adoption  of  the  amendment, 
that  the  success  or  failure  of  Prohibition  is  to 
be  determined.  Laws  are  of  two  kinds,  those 
which  are  permissive,  and  those  which  are  man- 
datory. For  tlie  execution  of  a permissive  law, 
nothing  more  may  be  needed  than  the  bare  pas- 
sage of  the  lav/.  It  gives  somebody  the  privi- 
lege of  doing  something  they  want  to  do,  and  as 
soon  as  the  privilege  is  granted  they  proceed  to 
exercise  it.  But  a mandatoi’y,  a prohibitory  law, 
which  says  not.  You  may,  but.  You  may  not, 
requires  something  more  than  the  bare  declara- 
tion. 

2.  Such  a non-partisan  union  must,  it  is  ob- 
vious, be  temporary  in  its  nature.  There  can  be 
no  occasion  calling  for  its  existence,  as  a strictly 
non-partisan  body,  until  the  amendment  is  submit- 
ted, nor  any  occasion  for  its  continuance  after 
the  vote  has  been  taken.  For  temperance  societies, 
of  course,  there  is  equal  occasion  for  existence 
both  before  and  after ; but  there  can  be  but  a very 
small  sphere  of  operations  for  them  in  the  realm 
of  legislation,  unless  they  are  ready  to  use  their 
ballots  to  enforce  their  petitions. 

But  the  organizations  of  the  liquor  dealers  are 
permanent,  and  tlieir  sphere  of  operations  is  con- 
tinually extended  into  the  realm  of  politics,  reach- 
ing from  the  ward  primary  to  the  legislative  lobby. 


I'HE  NON-PARTlSAN  PLAN  OF  UNION.  I'JV 


The  advantage  that  results  to  them  from  this  fact 
is  a very  great  one,  not  only  during  the  amend- 
ment contest  itself,  but,  if  it  has  resulted  unfav- 
orably to  them,  afterward  in  preventing  the  en- 
forcement of  the  law.  The  non-partisan  amend- 
ment organization  dies  on  the  day  the  vote  is  i 
taken,  for  it  was  created  not  to  elect  men  but  to 
elect  a principle.  But  now,  when  the  most  crit- 
cal  period  is  reached,  the  political  organizations 
of  the  liquor  dealers  find  the  field  practically  clear 
to  them,  and  time  and  again  they  have  succeeded 
in  virtually  nullifying  the  law. 

The  law  has  been  brought  into  existence,  but  its 
parent  has  died  in  giving  it  birth,  while  the  Herod 
who  seeks  its  life  lives  on.  It  finds  an  organized 
opposition  ; an  unorganized  support. 

3.  A non-partisan  union  of  this  kind  must  be, 
from  the  nature  of  the  case,  limited  to  the  extent 
of  a single  State,  while  the  organizations  of  the 
liquor  dealers  are  National.  If  in  any  State,  noN 
withstanding  their  advantages,  the}^  fail  to  pre- 
vent submission,  fail  to  prevent  adoption,  and  fail 
to  prevent  enforcement  of  the  law,  the  power 
which  they  wield  over  political  leaders  in  other 
States,  and  over  the  fate  of  parties  in  all  doubtful 
States,  can  be  called  into  requisition.  As  has 
been  said,  the  National  Protective  Association  and 
the  United  States  Brewers’  Association  have  of 
late  years  actively  interested  themselves  in  all  the 
amendment  contests,  and  it  is  a significant  fact 
that  since. their  activity  began  in  this  direction, 


ISO  THE  NON-PARTISAN  PLAN  OF  UNION. 

not  one  amendment  contest  has  been  carried  for 
Prohibition.  But  they  have  done  more  than  this, 
for  they  have  appropriated  funds  to  prevent  the 
enforcement  of  the  law  in  Kansas  and  Iowa  and 
probably  elsewhere,  especially  in  the  way  of  car- 
rying cases  from  one  court  to  another.  To  what 
extent  their  political  power  has  been  exerted  upon 
leaders  of  the  National  parties  in  doubtful  States, 
to  arrest  the  spread  of  Prohibition,  cannot  be 
known ; but  it  is  not  necessary  to  go  farther  than 
the  columns  of  the  paper  in  Washington,  edited 
by  the  attorney  of  the  Brewers’  Association,  to 
see  that  the  exertion  in  this  direction  has  been 
strenuously  made. 

The  thought  may  suggest  itself  here  that  the 
argument  that  has  been  presented  proves  too 
much,  for  Prohibition  has  already  been  secured  in 
five  States  by  the  non-partisan  method.  This, 
however,  is  not  strictly  true  ; in  fact,  it  involves  a 
double  error.  In  the  first  place.  Prohibition  has 
not  been  secured  in  five  States,  even  though  prohi- 
bitory law  has  been.  In  each  of  these  States  where 
the  law  exists,  with  the  exception  perhaps  of  Kan- 
sas, the  instances  of  culpable  negligence  in  its  en- 
forcement are  many. 

In  the  second  place,  the  law  itself  has  not  been 
secured  except  as  the  result,  in  some  part,  of  par- 
tisan action,  and,  in  greater  part  still,  of  the  dread 
of  partisan  action.  In  IMaine,  indeed,  the  enact- 
ment of  the  law  was  secured  at  first  by  non-parti- 
san action,  but  almost  at  once  upon  its  passage 


THE  NON-PARTISAN  PLAN  OF  UNION.  ISi 

its  weaknesses  were  disclosed,  and  a distinct  Maine 
Law  Party  was  organized  for  the  express  purpose 
of  enacting  and  executing  necessary  enforcing 
legislation. 

In  Kansas  also  the  law  was  secured  by  non-par- 
tisan influences,  but  much  the  same  order  of 
events  was  witnessed  there.  The  constant  power 
of  the  liquor  dealers  continued  to  make  itself  felt 
after  the  swell  of  public  sentiment  had  subsided. 
In  many  of  the  cities,  in  consequence,  notably  in 
Topeka,  no  effort  was  made  to  enforce  the  law  for 
several  years.  At  least  one  of  the  influences 
which  defeated  the  renomination  of  Governor  St. 
John  in  1884,  and  secured  the  nomination  of  a 
candidate  with  views  unfavorable  to  the  law,  was 
that  of  the  enemies  of  Prohibition.  That  verj' 
year  the  question  was  made  a partisan  question. 
The  Prohibition  party  came  into  the  field  with  4,- 
495  votes.  Two  years  later  their  vote  had  increased 
to  8,094,  and  in  several  congressional  districts 
they  came  ominously  near  to  holding  the  balance 
of  power.  Alarmed  by  this  demonstration,  the 
Republican  party  inserted  in  its  State  platform  of 
that  year  a strong  declaration  against  the  saloon 
as  a place  “ wherein  every  form  of  vice,  immoral- 
“ ity  and  crime  is  fostered,”  and  made  a demand  for 
such  an  enforcement  of  the  law  as  would  “ render 
“it  impossible  to  sell  intoxicating  liquor  in  the 
“ State.”  From  that  time  the  administration  of 
the  law  changed  very  materially  for  the  better. 
The  non-partisan  method  in  Kansas,  while  it  se* 


182  THE  HOH-PARTLSAN  PLAN  OF  UNION. 

cured  prohibitory  law,  failed  signally  to  secure 
Prohibition. 

4 

In  Iowa  and  Rhode  Island  the  partisan  method 
had  to  be  resorted  to  before  the  question  could 
even  be  obtained  for  submission  to  the  vote  of  the 
people.  In  Iowa  the  Prohibition  party  had 
attained,  prior  to  the  submission  of  the  amend- 
ment, a vote  of  10,545  votes  (1877)  ; ^d  in 
Rhode  Island  the  Prohibition  party  nearly  trebled 
its  vote  in  three  years  (1884-85-86)  just  prior  to 
the  submission  of  the  amendment.  To  attribute 
the  submission  of  the  amendment  to  the  rapid 
growth  of  the  Prohibition  party  vote,  may  strike 
some  as  a sort  of  post  hoc  ergo  propter  hoc  rea- 
soning ; but  precisely  similar  coincidences  in  Tex- 
as, Tennessee,  Michigan,  Oregon,  Nebraska  and 
Pennsylvania,  justify  the  inference  drawn,  that  in 
each  case  the  non-partisan  exercise  of  power  has 
been  insufficient  to  secure  Prohibition,  or  even, 
in  most  cases,  to  secure  prohibitory  law,  without 
resort  to  partisan  methods  sooner  or  later. 

It  has  been  confessed,  indeed,  by  the  mo.st 
ardent  advocates  of  the  non-partisan  methods  that 
these  methods  are  insufficient  to  accomplish  all 
that  is  to  be  done  in  order  to  secure  Prohibition, 
and  that  they  must  be  supplemented  by  other 
methods.  One  proposes  a balance-of-power  party 
as  a supplemental  method,  and  another  proposes 
partisan  action  through  one  of  the  old  parties, 
both  of  which  plans  have  shown  themselves,  upon 
analysis  in  previous  pages-,  to  be  r.npracticable. 


THE  OBJECTIONS  TO  A NEW  PAETY. 


183 


4.  The  Objections  to  a New  Party. 

How  then  shall  the  necessary  union  of  the  foes 
of  the  saloon  be  secured,  a union  in  action  as 
well  as  in  purpose  ? If  it  is  impracticable  to  se- 
cure such  a union  in  a balance-of-power  party,  or 
in  either  of  the  old  parties,  and  if  non-partisan 
union  falls  far  short  of  the  requirements  of  the 
case,  there  seems  to  be  but  one  method  left,  and 
that  is  union  in  a new  party ; all  who  recognize 
the  importance  of  this  issue,  North  and  South, 
Republican  and  Democrat,  white  and  black,  leav- 
ing their  old  political  affiliations,  meeting  each 
other  half-way  in  a new  political  organization,  that 
shall  nominate  its  own  candidates,  urge  on  its 
own  campaigns,  and  present  to  the  voter  on  elec- 
tion day  a ballot  that  will  mean,  when  cast  and 
counted  and  recorded,  that  the  voter  is  in  favor 
of  outlawing  the  liquor  traffic. 

This  has  been  done,  and  the  results  have  been 
seen  in  the  last  four  years  as  follows : (1)  A re- 
markable increase  in  the  public  interest  and  dis- 
cussion of  this  subject ; (2)  an  equally  note- 
worthy increase  in  the  amount  of  restrictive  legis- 
lation enacted  by  the  legislatures  of  almost  all 
the  States  in  the  Union ; (3)  a most  manifest 
increase  in  the  alarm  of  those  whose  interests 
are  closely  identified  with  the  liquor  traffic.  It  rs 
needless  to  enter  into  details  concerning  these 
points ; whoever  seeks  them  can  find  them  with- 
out difficulty.  To  say  that  these  results  are 
diz’ectly  and  solely  due  to  the  Prohibition  party^ 


184  THE  OBJECTIONS  TO  A NEW  PARTY. 

is  not  true.  They  are  due,  not  so  much  to  what  that 
party  has  done,  as  to  the  apprehension  of  what  it 
may  do  and  may  become. 

Several  objections  have  been  urged  with  force 
against  the  program  of  separate  party  action.  It 
is  urged  that, — 

1.  A distinct  party  plan  of  action  drags  the  con- 
test down  from  the  high  plane  of  principle  to  the  low 
plane  of  partisan  politics.  This  is  a great  moral 
question,  it  is  said,  and  should  be  fought  out  on  a 
high  moral  plane.  Such  doubtless  would  be  more 
agreeable  to  high-minded  men,  and  more  in  accord 
with  their  habits  of  thought  and  life.  Political 
strife  has  come  to  smack  of  coarseness,  self-seek- 
ing, and  deceit,  and  the  thought  of  active  partici- 
pation in  it  further  than  casting  a vote  on  the  day 
of  election,  is  to  many  an  extremely  repellaut 
thought.  But  after  all,  the  question  is  not  what 
is  agreeable,  but  what  is  necessary  to  effect  the 
removal  of  a great  public  incubus.  The  attitude 
of  Government  must  be  changed,  and  under  our 
system  of  representative  Government  the  only 
way  to  effect  such  changes  is  by  electing  men  who 
shall  represent  our  desires.  It  is  impossible  to  dc 
so  in  any  other  wa5^  "Whatever  force  this  objec 
tion  has,  therefore,  is  directed  against  our  S3'stem 
of  Government,  which  renders  such  methods  neces- 
sary in  order  to  carry  out  public  reforms.  Besides, 
strife  Tvdth  evil  in  the  abstract  is  a very  different 
thing  from  strife  with  concrete,  living,  ugly  evil. 
It  is  not  on  the  jMount  of  Transfiguration  that 


THE  OBJECTIONS  TO  A NEW  PARTY.  186 

♦ 

one  comes  to  close  grips  with  the  devil,  and  for 
that  reason  it  is  not  ours  to  stay  there  and  build 
our  tabernacles,  however  exalted  the  place  may 
seem  to  be. 

But,  after  all,  is  there  not  something  in  this 
very  objection  that  reveals  more  strongly  than 
ever  the  need  of  carrying  just  such  a moral  ques- 
tion as  this,  which  is  a Governmental  question 
as  well,  into  the  midst  of  political  strife?  If 
politics  is  a “ dirty  pool,”  is  it  not  because  it  has 
been  left  too  long  to  those  who  delight  in  dirty 
pools  ? In  itself,  politics  should  be  an  ennobling 
pursuit — the  outer  court  of  the  temple  of  states- 
manship. It  is  not  of  necessity  ignoble,  but  only 
so  when  it  becomes,  instead  of  conflict  between 
principles,  a mere  strife  between  place-seekers  and 
gamesters.  When  issues  real  and  great  come  to 
the  front  from  their  own  inherent  greatness,  and 
the  factitious  issues  that  have  been  forced  upon 
the  people  for  the  sake  of  mere  personal  or  party 
advantage  drop  to  the  rear,  then  politics  becomes 
no  longer  a mere  dirty  pool,  but  an  arena  of 
humanity,  where  the  best  that  manhood  has  to 
offer  is  not  too  great  as  a sacrifice.  Prohibition  is, 
indeed,  a moral  issue  ; what  Governmental  issue 
is  not  a moral  one  as  well  ? Honesty  is  a moral 
issue,  but  it  becomes  a very  important  political 
one  at  times. 

2.  The  distinct  party  method  divides  instead  of 
uniting  those  who  support  the»  principle  of  Prohibi- 
tion, So  it  does,  undoubtedly,  for  the  time  being. 


186  THE  OBJECTIONS  TO  A NEW  PARTY. 

« 

Its  first  effect  is  to  divide  into  three  parties  the 
foes  of  the  saloon  who  were  formerly  divided  into 
but  two.  But  this  is  an  objection  inevitable  in 
the  inauguration  of  any  new  movement.  The 
objection  would  be  equally  valid  against  every  new 
departure  in  politics  if  it  were  made  before  all 
were  ready  to  make  it  at  the  same  time.  When 
Dr.  Rush  inaugurated  the  crusade  against  the  use 
of  spirituous  liquors,  he  divided  the  forces  of 
“temperance”  for  the  time  being.  The  total 
abstinence  movement  created  another  division  for 
the  time  being.  No  advance  step  can  be  taken  in 
politics,  I’eligion,  business,  or  in  any  other  of  the 
spheres  of  action  without  incurring  the  same 
objection.  In  inaction  alone  is  there  freedom  from 
division.  The  question  in  this  case,  therefore,  is 
not  whether  the  party  method  creates  further 
division  at  once,  but  whether  it  creates  the  most 
feasible  basis  for  union  hereafter.  It  must  be 
remembered  that  the  foes  of  the  saloon  are  already 
disastrously  divided  into  two  parties,  and  in  con- 
sequence nullifjdng  one  another’s’  efforts  to  a great 
extent  in  the  sphere  of  politics.  The  new  party 
divides  them  still  more,  but  it  divides  them  from 
both  old  parties  to  reuidte  them  in  a new.  Every 
division  caused  by  it  in  the  old  parties  means  a 
reunion  in  the  new  party. 

3.  Laws  against  crime  are  not^  it  is  urged,  proper 
subjects  for  party  issues.  It  is  true  that  the  law 
against  theft,  robbeuy,  and  murder  are  not  party 
issues,  and  might  gain  nothing  by  being  made  so. 


THE  OBJECTIONS  TO  A NEW  PARTY.  18? 

But  if  it  were  conceivable  that  highway  robbery, 
for  instance,  had  been  made  a lawful  business, 
subject  to  certain  charges  to  be  paid  into  the  pub- 
lic treasury ; and  that  thousands  had  come  to 
make  it  their  daily  business,  and  millions  of  dol- 
lars had  been  invested  in  it,  it  is  quite  likely  in 
such  event  that  prohibition  of  highway  robbery 
would  be  an  issue  requiring  a sharp  conflict 
between  organized  parties.  In  the  case  of  the 
liquor  traffic,  the  necessity  is  not,  as  in  the  case 
of  crime,  for  a mere  adjustment  of  penalties,  for 
the  purpose  of  carrying  out  an  established  policy  ; 
but  the  necessity  is  for  a change  in  the  policy, 
a reversal  of  the  attitude  of  Government  from  that 
of  protection  to  that  of  Prohibition.  To  change 
this  attitude  requires  a decisive  conflict  between 
two  well-defined  policies,  each  supported  by  organ- 
ized bodies. 

4.  The  most  deterrent  of  all  objections  to  the 
party  method  is  probably  this  : that  the  processes  oj 
formation  for  a new  party,  are  likely  to  result  in 
weakening  the  better  of  the  two  existing  parties,  and 
in  strengthening  the  worse.  A new  party,  it  is 
feared,  though  it  may  come  into  power  some  time 
in  a remote  future,  will,  until  then,  result  in  giving 
to  the  friends  of  the  saloon  a fuller  swing  of  powe?- 
and  ampler  opportunity  for  entrenching  them- 
selves in  office. 

The  answer  to  this  objection  is  a twofold  one; 
first,  an  appeal  to  faith,  and,  second,  an  appeal  tf- 
facts. 


188  THE  OBJECTIONS  TO  A NEW  PARTY. 

The  facts  are  as  follows.  During  the  four  years 
from  1884  to  1888,  in  which  the  processes  of  for. 
mation  for  the  new  party  were  most  active,  the 
result,  so  far  from  being  an  increase  in  the  free- 
dom of  the  liquor  traffic,  was  a very  positive 
decrease.  In  no  other  four  years  of  the  Nation’s 
history,  probably,  was  so  much  stringent  liquor 
legislation  enacted  as  during  the  period  just  men- 
tioned. At  the  time  of  the  campaign  of  1884,  it 
was  very  freely  predicted  that  the  cause  of  tem- 
perance had  been  “ set  back  twenty  years  ” by  the 
party  methods  adopted  by  Prohibitionists.  Men 
argued  in  this  very  natural  way,  that  the  transfer- 
ence of  power  from  the  party  more  friendly  to 
temperance  legislation,  and  unto  the  party  more 
averse  to  such  legislation,  would  result  in  worse 
laws  or  in  feebler  execution  of  those  laws  already 
in  existence.  But  as  a matter  of  fact  the  very 
reverse  of  this  took  place.  There  became  appar- 
ent a solicitude,  on  the  part  of  both  old  parties, 
and  even,  to  a marked  degree,  on  the  part  of  the 
liquor  dealers  themselves,  not  to  offend  too  deeply 
the  temperance  sentiment  of  the  country.  Merely 
from  motives  of  policy,  therefore,  if  from  none 
other,  leaders  of  one  party  felt  called  upon  to  exert 
themselves  as  never  before  in  order  to  prevent  a 
further  exodus  from  their  ranks,  and  the  leaders  of 
the  other  party  had  a care  not  to  check  that  exo- 
dus from  the  ranks  of  their  rival  b}"  flagrant  acts 
of  overt  friendship  to  the  liquor  dealers. 

The  result  then  has  been  that  more  concessions 


THE  OBJECTIONS  TO  A NEW  PARTY.  189 


have  been  made  to  temperance  sentiment,  by  State 
Legislatures,  in  the  four  years  following  the  St. 
John  cornpaign,  than  in  the  ten  years  preceding. 
In  seven  States  (Rhode  Island,  Michigan,  Oregon, 
Texas,  Tennessee,  New  Hampshire  and  Massachu' 
setts)  and  one  Territory  (Dakota)  prohibitory 
amendments  have  been  submitted  to  popular  vote 
in  response  to  the  previously  unheeded  petitions 
of  the  temperance  workers,  and  in  three  other 
States  (West  Virginia,  Pennsylvania  axid  Neb- 
raska) the  day  for  such  a vote  has  been  set. 
Laws  for  scientific  temperance  instruction  in  the 
common  schools  have  been  passed  in  sixteen  States 
and  one  Territory,  and  by  Congress  for  the  schools 
under  Federal  supervision.  In  the  prohibitory 
States  of  Maine,  Kansas,  Iowa,  and  Vermont,  en- 
forcing laws  of  very  great  importance  have  been 
enacted.  In  many  other  States,  especially  Penn- 
sylvania, Minnesota,  and  New  Jersey,  severe 
restrictive  measures  have  been  grafted  on  the 
license  laws.  The  increasing  evidences  of  alarm 
manifested  by  the  liquor  dealers',  have  been  an  indi- 
cation pointing  strongly  in  the  same  direction. 

The  point  that  is  sought  to  be  made  here  is  not 
that  this  increase  of  stringent  legislation  is  due  to 
the  Prohibition  party  ; but  that,  the  formative  pro- 
cesses of  that  party  have  served  rather  to  stimu- 
late than  to  check  such  legislation.  The  appre- 
hension that  they  would  place  a strong  barrier  in 
the  way  of  such  legislation  has  certainly  not  been, 
realized. 


190 


IS  PUBLIC  SENPIMEXT  READY 


5.  Is  Public  Seutiment  Ready  for  a Prohibition 
Party. 

If  it  be  admitted  that  the  cause  of  Prohibition 
requires  a new  party  to  make  it  an  efficient  suc- 
cess, the  question  &t\\\  whether  the  time  for 

it  has  come.  What  probabilities  of  success  has  it? 
Is  public  sentiment  far  enough  advanced?  What 
other  issues  are  in  the  way  claiming  a prior  settle- 
ment at  the  hands  of  existing  parties  ? 

It  is  said  that  public  sentiment  is  not  ready  for 
such  a party  or  such  a law.  However  this  may  be, 
there  can  be  no  reasonable  objection  urged  against 
an  organized  effort  to  make  public  sentiment  ready.  * 
What  indeed  is  a party  but  an  organized  attempt 
to  bring  public  sentiment  up  to  a certain  point  and 
then  direct  it  into  certain  definite  action?  There 
certainly  can  be  no  fear  that  such  a party,  which 
must  contend  every  foot  of  the  way,  will  come 
into  power  before  enough  public  sentiment  has 
been  created  to  sustain  such  a law.  The  part}’ 
that  appeals  to  popular  passion  or  prejudice  may 
indeed  ride  suddenly  into  power  on  a swell  of 
emotional  excitement  it  has  created,  and  work 
great  mischief  before  the  reaction  comes.  But 
there  is  small  fear  that  any  such  premature  suc- 
cess will  attend  a party  that  antagonizes  popular 
passion  and  appetite,  and  which  must  hold  men,  if 
it  holds  them  at  all,  by  steady  and  persistent  con- 
viction rather  than  by  temporary  impulses.  The 
party  must  create  the  sentiment  before  ic  comes 
into  power. 


IS  PUBLIC  SENTIMENT  READY. 


191 


But  the  above  objection  generally  assumes 
another  form.  It  is  said  that  the  party  has  no 
chances  of  success;  that  a vote  cast  with  it  must 
be,  for  years  to  come,  thrown  away ; that,  in  short, 
ihe  whole  movement  in  the  present  state  of  public 
opinion,  however  admirable  it  may  be  from  some 
points  of  view,  is  a premature  movement. 

Whether  or  not  this  is  so  depends  largely  upon, 
(1)  the  strength  of  Prohibition  sentiment  already 
' developed,  and  (2)  the  extent  to  which  it  can  be 
concentrated  in  a new  party. 

The  progress  made  by  public  sentiment  toward 
the  principle  of  Prohibition,  is  best  seen  in  the 
votes  which  have  been  cast  for  it  in  the  amend- 
ment campaigns.  Since  1880,  the  direct  vote  of  the 
people  has  been  taken  on  this  question  in  ten  dif- 
ferent States,  and  one  Territory.  The  results  are 
tabulated  below : 


STATE  OR  TERRITORY. 

Vote  for 
Prohibition. 

Vote  against 
Prohibition. 

Kansas,  1880 

92,302 

81,304 

Iowa,  1882 

155,436 

125.677 

Ohio.  1883 

323,189 

240,975 

Maine,  1884 

70,783 

23.811 

Rhode  Island,  1886 

15,113 

9,230 

Michigan,  1887 

178,636 

184.281 

Texas,  1887 

129,270 

220,627 

Tennessee,  1887  

117,504 

145,197 

Oregon,  1887 

19,973 

27,938 

New  Hampshire,  1888 

25.786 

30,976 

Dakota,  1885 

15,570 

15,337 

Total 

1.143,562 

1,108,373 

The  above  figures  are  obtained  from  The  Political  Prohibitionist  for 
188T  and  1888.  They  are  official  figures. 


Here,  then,  in  these  ten  States  and  one  Terri- 
tory (now  two  States)  of  the  Union,  considerably 


192 


IS  PUBLIC  SENTIMENT  READY. 


more  than  one  million  votes  have  been  recorded  in 
favor  of  Prohibition  itself,  as  an  issue  distinct 
from  party  entanglements.  On  comparing  this 
vote  with  the  vote  cast  in  each  of  the  above 
States  in  the  presidential  election  that  dated  near- 
est the  time  the  vote  on  Prohibition  was  taken,  we 
find  the  total  presidential  vote  to  have  been  2.703,- 
512.  Two-fifths,  then,  of  the  entire  vote  of  these 
States  was  enrolled  in  favor  of  Prohibition ; less 
than  two-fifths  were  enrolled  against  it,  and  more 
than  one-fifth  refrained  from  voting.  If  the  votes 
taken  by  counties  and  cities,  in  1886,  in  the  States 
of  Arkansas,  Missouri,  and  Massachusetts,  on  the 
question  of  license  or  no-license,  be  considered, 
about  the  same  proportions  will  be  seen  to  have 
held  for  those  States  also. 

The  same  proportion  throughout  the  country,  as  in 
these  fifteen  States,  would  show  that  the  voting 
strength  of  Prohibition  is  already  four-fifths  of  a 
voting  majority. 

This  strength,  too,  has  been  acquired  in  spite  of 
the  generally  hostile  attitude  of  the  daily  press, 
and  the  more  or  less  hostile  attitude  of  the 
“ machines  ” of  both  old  parties,  two  agencies 
which,  when  combined,  are  generally  omnipotent 
in  the  realm  of  politics.  When  it  is  remembered 
that  the  prohibitory  sentiment  among  the  women 
of  the  land  is  still  more  active  and  zealous,  the 
near  possibilities  of  the  movement  take  on  a vaster 
fo  m. 

But  can  this  sentiment  be  consolidated  in  a new 


IS  PUBLIC  SENTIMENT  READY  193 

party  ? To  accomplish  this  there  must  he  some- 
thing more  than  a mere  belief  in  Prohibition  ; 
there  must  be  a belief  in  it  as  the  dominant  issue. 
Men  do  not  draw  out  of  an  old  political  party,  to 
join  a new,  unless  they  are  convinced  that  the  new 
party  stands  for  an  issue  of  more  vital  importance 
than  the  old.  Whether  this  conviction  can  be 
implanted  deep  enough  and  wide  enough  to  insure 
victory,  is  of  course  one  of  those  problems  that 
the  future  only  can  solve.  Several  considerations, 
however,  are  pertinent  here  as  casting  light  on  the 
question  of  the  permanency  of  the  party. 

Almost  invariably  in  the  history  of  third  parties, 
the  desire  for  fusion  has  been  the  forerunner  of 
the  party’s  fate.  The  temptation  becomes  strong, 
when  a balance  of  power  has  been  gained,  to 
secure  immediate  results  by  combining  with  one 
or  other  of  the  old  parties.  The  temptation  may 
come  in  the  form  of  a nomination  to  office  con- 
ceded to  the  new  party,  or  the  promise  of  certain 
legislation,  or  a share  of  the  official  patronage  in 
the  event  of  victory.  Whatever  may  be  the 
motive  prompting  the  fusion,  the  result  has,  as  a 
rule,  been  disastrous  to  the  new  party,  and  for  a 
very  obvious  reason.  Its  membership  has,  pre- 
sumably, been  drawn  from  bot*h  old  parties,  and  a 
combination  with  either  one  is  naturally  distaste- 
ful therefore  to  a large  number,  who  look  upon 
such  action  as  a breach  of  faith.  Recriminations 
follow,  leader  becomes  arrayed  against  leader, 
mutual  distrust  is*engendered,  and  the  usual  fate 
13 


194 


IS  PUBLIC  SENTIMENT  BEADY. 


of  a house  divided  against  itself  is  the  result. 
The  epitaph  that  might  well  be  written  for  every 
third  party  whose  remains  strew  the  highway  of 
history  is:  Fusion — Confusion — Diffusion. 

The  Prohibition  party  has  steadily  avoided  this 
danger.  It  has  done  so  not  from  the  lack  of 
opportunity,  nor  from  a mere  happy  chance ; but 
from  intelligent  conviction.  One  of  the  popular 
watchwords  of  the  party  has  been  : We  make  no 
deals.”  This  course  determinedly  adhered  to, 
while  it  has  caused  some  bitter  feeling  amonor 
those  outside  the  party,  has  preserved  within  the 
pait}^  an  unbroken  harmony  and  an  assured  confi- 
dence in  its  leadership. 

The  party  has  had,  therefore,  if  not  a very 
rapid,  a very  steady  and  solid  growth.  It  has 
maintained  its  National  organization  during  five 
successive  presidential  campaigns,  and  in  the  last 
three  its  vote  has  been  in  round  numbers : 1880, 
10,000 ; 1884,  150,000 ; 1888,  250,000.  This,  of 
course,  is  a long  way  from  anything  like  victory ; 
but  the  growth  of  a new  party  is  very  apt  to  be 
in  something  like  geometrical  ratio.  Each  advance 
renders  easier  a next  advance,  and  renders  more 
enthusiastic  the  efforts  to  secure  it. 

Briefly  stated,  the  claims  for  the  party’s  perman- 
ence and  success  are  : 

1.  The  nature  of  its  issue.  It  is  clearly  defined, 
and  its  advocates  know  exactly  what  the\'  want  in 
the  way  of  practical  legislation.  They  are  agreed 
not  only  on  the  end  to  be  reachfcdj  but  on  the  way 


OTHER  ISSUES  OF  THE  DAY. 


195 


in  which  to  reach  it.  Its  proposed  reform  has 
been  tested  and  tried  for  more  than  a generation, 
and  the  sources  of  its  strength  and  weakness  are 
known.  It  is  not,  therefoi’e,  a mere  speculation 
or  a sentiment.  It  is  a moral,  as  well  as  a political 
issue,  calculated  to  arouse  that  most  potent  of  all 
the  forces  known  to  history,  namely,  moral  enthusi- 
asm. It  is  an  industrial  reform  of  the  first  value 
to  all  classes,  capitalists  and  wage-earners  alike. 
It  is  a non-sectional  and  non-racial  issue,  appealing 
equally  to  voters  of  all  sections  and  all  colors. 
.4.nd  above  all  it  is  an  issue  of  constant  and 
increasing  importance.  The  evil  which  it  seeks  to 
remedy  is  one  that  is  dail}''  forcing  itself  upon 
public  attention.  The  rapid  growth  of  great 
cities,  the  immense  accessions  to  our  population, 
as  well  as  the  larvs  of  appetite  and  avarice,  com- 
bine to  make  the  issue  one  of  greater  and  greater 
consequence.  It  was  not  born  of  political  change ; 
it  will  not  die  by  reason  of  it. 

2.  A puhlic  sentiment  already  reaching  nearly 
four-fifths  of  a voting  majority  of  the  Natioii^  favor- 
able to  the  principle  and  policy  of  Prohibition. 

3.  A steady  avoidance,  on  the  part  of  tdiose  con- 
trolling the  policy  of  the  neiv  party,  of  those  mis- 
takes of  fusion,  which  have  lorecked  so  many  other 
third  parties  at  the  outset  of  their  career. 

6.  Other  Issues  of  the  Day. 

Finally,  is  to  be  considered  the  nature  of  other 
issues  clamorous  for  attention,  and  the  effect  which 


196 


OTHER  ISSUES  OF  THE  DAY. 


the  new  part5^’s  success  would  have  upon  them. 

Political  corruption  has  become  one  of  the  most 
urgent  of  these  issues. 

The  relation  which  the  saloon  bears  to  this  evil, 
in  its  present  form,  has  been  pointed  out  in  previous 
pages.  But  would  not  the  new  party,  as  it  came 
into  power,  become  equall}^  corrupt  with  the  old 
parties?  Naturally,  it  would  then  attract  place- 
seekers  and  spoilsmen,  and  the  morals  of  the  party 
would  suffer.  The  approach  to  success  would 
doubtless  bring  to  this  as  to  all  other  parties  in- 
creased temptations  and  a diminution  in  the  purity 
of  its  methods.  But  it  would  have  cut  itself 
loose,  of  necessity,  from  the  saloon,  and  from 
those  methods  of  corruption  which  can  be  made 
successful  on  a large  scale  only  through  the  saloon. 
Moreover,  a campaign  on  a really  important  issue, 
moral  as  well  as  political,  is  sure  to  bring  to  the 
front  moral  leaders  and  to  relegate  to  the  rear  the 
mere  wire-pullers  and  tricksters.  It  is  when  a 
party  becomes  devoid  of  any  such  issues  that  it 
has  to  depend  so  implicitly  upon  the  “ machine  ” 
and  those  skilled  in  manipulating  it. 

Tariff  Reform  is  another  issue  that  has  been 
more  or  less  prominent  throughout  the  history’  of 
the  Nation,  and  which,  so  long  as  there  is  a tariff, 
will  continue  to  demand  attention  from  time  to 
time.  But  this  issue,  so  far  as  it  is  made  an  issue 
at  all  between  the  two  old  parties,  consists  entirely 
in  matters  of  detail.  So  far  as  platform  utterances 
go,  both  parties  stand  on  the  same  ground  in  re- 


OTHER  ISSUES  OF  THE  DAY. 


197 


spect  to  the  tariff,  since  both  declare  in  favor  of  a 
readjustment  of  rates,  and  neither  declares  for  free 
trade.  On  the  details  of  readjustment  there  is 
conflict;  on  the  need  of  some  sort  of  readjustment 
there  is  agreement.  The  Democratic  House  has 
one  tariff  reform  bill  and  the  Republican  Senate 
has  another,  and  the  only  question  is  which  better 
meets  the  industrial  needs  of  the  Nation.  To 
determine  this  requires  a mastery  of  the  details  of 
the  tariff  and  of  industrial  conditions  which  few 
voters  can  hope  to  obtain. 

If  there  is  any  issue  that  suffers  from  being 
made  a partisan  question  it  is  the  issue  of  Tariff 
Reform.  It  is  about  the  last  question  in  the  world 
that  should  be  settled  by  means  of  popular  vote, 
for  it  is  one  the  average  voter  can  not,  from  the  very 
nature  of  the  case,  pass  judgment  upon  with  com- 
prehensive intelligence.  The  lumberman  of  Maine 
may  be  rvell-fitted  to  decide  what  tlie  effect  of  a 
certain  schedule  of  rates  on  lumber  would  be  ; but 
how  is  he  to  come  to  an  intelligent  opinion  on  the 
precise  duty  that  should  be  placed  on  pig  iron  or 
steel  rails?  Or  what  can  the  iron  merchant 
ordinarily  know  regarding  the  exact  per  cent, 
of  duty  that  should  be  placed  on  cut  lumber  ? 
The  miner  of  Michigan  and  the  potter  of  New 
Jersey  know  the  conditions  each  of  his  own 
industry,  but  what  means  has  either  of  de- 
ciding whether  the  rate  on  the  other’s  product  can 
be  safely  lowered  ten  or  twenty  per  cent  ? In 
fact,  as  a general  rule,  the  only  particulars  in 


198 


OTHER  ISSUES  OF  THE  DAY. 


which  the  average  voter  is  competent  to  decide, 
are  the  very  ones  in  which  his  own  self-interest  is 
’v  to  bias  his  decision.  It  becomes,  therefore, 
a conflict  mainly  of  local  and  selfish  interests. 

If  it  were  a question  between  free  trade  and  pro- 
tection, a question,*that  is,  between  principles  and 
not  details,  the  lumberman  of  Maine,  the  iroii 
worker  of  Pennsylvania,  the  potter  of  Jersey,  the 
miner  of  iNlichigan,  the  wool-grower  of  Ohio,  and 
the  sugar  planter  of  Louisiana,  might  all  be  equally 
fitted  to  decide,  and,  what  is  better,  those  whose 
self-interest  was  not  directly  involved  would  be 
equally  competent,  or  more  so,  to  form  a correct 
conclusion.  But  it  is  no  such  issue  and  neither 
party  can  make  such  an  issue  as  at  present  consti- 
tuted. Nor,  indeed,  can  either  party  approach  the 
question  of  details  with  anything  like  an  har- 
monious spirit.  Tariff  Reform  wflth  both  old 
parties,  has  become,  under  such  circumstances,  a 
mere  playing  for  points,  a strife  for  party  advant- 
age. The  Democratic  bill  puts  salt,  a Northern 
product  chiefly,  on  the  free  list,  but  leaves  a duty 
of  over  sixty  per  cent.,  on  sugar,  a Southern  product 
chiefly.  The  Republican  bill  retaliates  b}'  leaving 
the  duty  on  salt  undisturbed,  but  cutting  down 
the  duty  on  sugar  fifty  per  cent.  The  Congress- 
man of  upper  New  York  votes,  as  one  admitted  to 
tlie  writer  not  long  ago,  for  a high  duty  on  hops, 
to  keep  out  those  of  Canadian  growth,  but  for  free 
trade  in  hop-poles  so  that  his  constitutents  could 
purchase  them  at  the  cheapest  rates.  The  only 


OTHER  ISSUES  OF  THE  DAY. 


199 


wise  plan  of  regulating  equitably  the  tariff  rates 
from  year  to  year  or  from  decade  to  decade,  seems 
to  be  by  a commission  of  industrial  experts,  such 
as  was  constituted  by  Congress  a few  years  ago, 
before  which  all  interests  have  a hearing,  and  by 
which  a readjustment  of  rates  according  to  the 
industrial  needs  of  the  nation,  and  not  the  needs 
of  partisanship,  may  be  expected. 

The  Labor  Problems  of  the  day  are  clamorous, 
but  chaotic.  Who  can  tell  just  what  they  are, 
much  less  just  what  they  demand?  What  plan  of 
action  could  possibly  form  the  basis  of  a united 
labor  party  ? What  is  the  specific  legislation 
on  which  the  labor  interests  are  agreed  ? In  the 
last  presidential  campaign  there  were  five  distinct 
parties,  each  claiming  to  be  a labor  party,  in  the 
* field,  namely.  Union  Labor,  United  Labor,  Green- 
back, Industrial  Reform,  and  Socialists. 

A free  ballot  and  a fair  count  is  to  many  vot- 
ers an  issue  of  supreme  importance,  but  is,  again, 
an  issue  which  neither  old  party  seems  capable  of 
settling,  doubtless  because  both  share  in  the  guilt 
of  corrupting  the  ballot-box  where  they  have 
power  enough  to  do  so  with  impunity.  Just  how 
much  of  fact  there  is  in  the  representations  made 
concerning  the  Avay  in  which  the  negro  in  some  of 
the  Southern  States  is  defrauded  of  his  ballot,  it 
is  difficult  to  tell.  But  this  is  certain,  that  twen- 
ty-four years  of  Republican  ascendancy  in  the 
White  House  failed  to  correct  the  evil,  or  indeed, 
if  the  representations  of  some  Republican  leaders 


200 


OTHER  ISSUES  OF  THE  DAY. 


are  to  be  credited,  even  to  check  it.  The  same 
conditions  seem  to  have  prevailed  under  Republi- 
can as  under  Democratic  ascendancy.  Either  the 
evil  is  one  that  can  not  be  reached  by  Federal  in- 
terference, or  both  parties  have  shamelessly  neg- 
lected to  reach  it.  And  if  it  can  be  remedied  only 
by  State  action,  the  fact  that  in  the  last  campaign 
the  Republican  party  entirely  abandoned  the  field 
in  many  of  the  Southern  States,  making  no  State 
nominations  and  no  campaign,  seems  to  indicate 
that  if  the  remedy  is  to  come  at  all  it  must  be  by 
some  otlier  channel  than  that  party. 

In  fact,  the  day  of  distinct  issues  between  the 
two  old  parties  has  to  all  present  appearances 
passed  away.  Their  issues  now  are  factitious 
ones,  differing  with  different  localities,  changing 
from  one  year  to  another  in  the  same  locality.  ’ 
Their  appeals  are  almost  wholly  appeals  to  past 
records  or  bitter  assaults  upon  the  honesty  and 
patriotism  of  their  opponents.  It  is  a strife  of  ins 
and  outs.  Years  ago  Ralph  Waldo  Emerson  said: 

“ From  neither  party,  when  in  power,  has  the 
world  any  benefit  to  expect  in  science,  art,  or 
humanity,  at  all  commensurate  with  the  re- 
sources of  the  nation.” — (^Emerson' s '•'•Essay  on 
Politics.’’^') 

And  again  he  says  : 

“ The  vice  of  our  leading  parties  in  this  country 
is  that  they  do  not  plant  themselves  on  the  deep 
and  necessary  grounds  to  which  they  are  respeo- 


OTHER  ISSUES  OF  THE  DAY. 


201 


tively  entitled,  but  lash  themselves  to  fury  in 
the  carrying  of  some  local  and  momentary  mea- 
sure, nowise  useful  to  the  Commonwealth.” 
What  Emerson  described  as  the  condition  of 
affairs  a few  years  ago,  a careful  student  of  Ameri- 
can politics  describes  as  the  condition  to-day.  In 
his  work  on  “The  American  Commonwealth” 
which  has  won  such  high  encomiums  from  all 
critics.  Prof.  Bryce,  of  Edinburgh,  says: 

“This  election  [1876]  marks  the  close  of  the 
third  period,  which  embraces  the  rise  and  over- 
whelming predominance  of  the  Republican 
party.  Formed  to  resist  the  extension  of  slav- 
ery, led  on  to  destroy  it,  compelled  by  circum- 
stances to  expand  the  central  authority  in  a way 
unthought  of  before,  that  party  had  now  worked 
out  its  program  and  fulfilled  its  original  mis- 
sion. The  old  aims  were  accomplished,  but 
new  ones  had  not  yet  been  substituted,  for 
though  new  problems  had  apj^eared,  the  party 
was  not  prepared  with  solutions.  Similarly  the 
Democratic  party  had  discharged  its  mission  in 
defending  the  rights  of  the  reconstructed  States 
and  criticising  excesses  of  executive  power; 
similarly  it  too  had  refused  to  grapple  either 
with  the  fresh  questions  which  had  begun  to 
arise  since  the  war,  or  with  those  older  ques- 
tions which  had  now  reappeared  above  the  sub- 
siding flood  of  war-days.  The  old  parties  still 
stood  as  organizations,  and  still  claimed  to  be 


202 


OTHER  ISSUES  OF  THE  DAY. 


the  exponents  of  principles.  Their  respective 
principles  had,  however,  little  direct  application 
to  the  questions  which  confronted  and  divided 
the  Nation.  A new  era  was  opening,  which 
called  either  for  the  evolution  of  new  parties  or 
for  the  transformation  of  the  old  ones  by  the 
adoption  of  tenets,  and  the  advocacy  of  views 
suited  to  the  needs  of  the  time.  But  this 
fourth  period,  which  began  with  1876,  has  not 
yet  seen  such  a transformation,  and  we  shall 
therefore  find,  when  we  come  to  examine  the 
existing  state  of  parties,  that  there  is  an  unre- 
ality and  lack  of  vital  force  in  both  Republi- 
cans and  Democrats,  powerful  as  their  organiza- 
tions are.” — (2%e  American  Commonwealth,  vol. 
IL,p.  648.) 

“The  American  parties  now  continue  to  exist  be- 
cause they  have  existed.  The  mill  has  been 
constructed  and  its  machinery  goes  on  turning 
even  when  there  is  no  grist  to  grind.” — p.  656. 

In  designating  the  new  issues  which  have  arisen 
since  the  war  and  are  now  calling  for  settlement, 
Professor  Bryce  first  mentions  the  treatment  of 
the  liquor  traffic.  He  says  ’ 

“ That  [new  issue]  which  most  keenly  interests 
the  people,  though  of  course  not  all  the  people, 
is  the  regulation  or  extinction  of  the  liquor 
traffic.  On  this  neither  party  has  committed  or 
will  commit  itself.  * * * * Practically 

for  both  parties  the  point  of  consequence  ia 


OTHER  ISSUES  OF  THE  DAY. 


203 


what  they  can  gain  or  lose.  Each  has  clearly 
something  to  lose.  The  drinking  part  of  the 
population  is  chiefly  foreign.  Now  the  Irish 
are  mainly  Democrats,  so  the  Democratic  party 
dare  not  offend  them.  The  Germans  are  mainly 
Republicans,  so  the  Republicans  are  equally 
bound  over  to  caution.” — p.  657. 

Such  is  the  condition  as  seen  by  a careful  ob- 
server, who  has  the  additional  advantage  of  observ- 
ing American  politics  as  an  outsider.  Two  par- 
ties, marshalling  their  forces  each  year  in  heated 
conflict  over  nobody  knows  what.  A tremendous 
expenditure  of  energy  and  money,  accompanied 
generally  with  a deluge  of  unsavory  personalities 
for  the  lack  of  better  campaign  material,  and  with 
demoralization  to  business,  in  order  to  decide,  not 
a great  question  of  national  polity,  but  whether 
one  set  of  politicians  or  another  shall  enter  upon 
the  ofiices.  “ The  mill  has  been  constructed  and 
“ its  machinery  goes  on  turning  even  when  there 
“ is  no  grist  to  grind.” 

The  appeal  can  be  made  with  confidence,  to 
any  candid  voter,  Republican  or  Democrat,  if  the 
conditions  of  political  life  in  our  country  to-day 
do  not  tally  very  closely  with  those  described  by 
the  historian  Froude,  in  speaking  of  another  Re- 
public of  earlier  times.  Mr.  Froude  said: 

“The  essential  causes  of  difference  had  ceased, 
but  two  traditional  parties  still  contended  for 
supremacy,  and  as  the  distinctions  grew  more 


204 


OTHER  ISSUES  OF  THE  DAY. 


unreal,  the  more  bitter  faction  became.  Men  of 
real  ability,  to  whatever  party  they  belonged, 
thought  at  heart  very  much  alike.  They  knew 
that  they  could  not  stand  still  in  a world  of 
change,  and  they  knew  that  if  they  let  the 
horses  run  away  there  was  risk  of  an  overturn. 
When  there  was  no  longer  any  question  of  prin- 
ciple, the  contention  of  parties  in  the  Legisla- 
ture degenerated  into  a struggle  for  power,  and 
the  chiefs  on  both  sides  were  driven  forward  by 
a fatal  necessity  to  raise  new  questions,  to  excite 
new  hopes,  and  to  appeal  to  passion  to  decide 
on  problems  which  required  the  coolest  reason. 
However  able  a man  was,  he  could  not  do  his 
ability  justice.  His  duty  was  to  his  party — his 
party  first,  his  country  after.  Statesmen  might 
see  the  truth,  hut  the}^  dared  not  act  upon  it. 
They  were  arranged  in  opposite  camps,  each  ad- 
vocating one  set  of  opinions  only,  and  denounc- 
ing their  rivals  as  public  enemies.  They  had 
often  to  thwart  what  they  knew  to  be-  good,  and 
to  advocate  what  they  really  disapproved.  If 
the  result  was  music,  tlie  music  was  made  out 
of  discord.  A genuine  patriot  could  only  ex- 
claim, ‘A  plague  o’  both  your  houses.’  ” — (^Ad- 
dress by  James  Anthony  I'roude,  Nov.  3,  1882,  07i 
“A  Lesson  on  Democracy.,"  before  the  Birming- 
ham Institute.') 

The  peril  of  this  condition  of  things  described 
by  Mr.  Froude,  is  greatly  inereased  in  this  coun- 
try by  the  fact  that  here  this  division  of  parties  is 


OTHER  ISSUES  OF  THE  DAY. 


205 


to  such  a great  extent  a sectional  division.  No 
patriot  can  view  with  other  tlian  feelings  of  regret 
the  arra}^  of  the  virtuous  and  intelligent  in  one 
(section  against  those  of  the  same  character  in  an- 
other section,  not  because  of  any  vital  difference 
in  belief  or  patriotic  purpose,  but  by  reason  of  the 
passions  of  a war  ended  nearly  a quarter  of  a cem 
tury  ago,  and  by  reason  of  the  distrust  kept  alive 
by  political  leaders  of  both  sections  for  partisan 
ends.'  The  division,  as  has  been  said,  is  an  unna- 
tural one.  Twenty-five  years  of  political  strife 
have  left  every  Southern  State  in  the  Democratic 
column,  and  every  Northern  State,  excepting 
Connecticut,  in  the  Republican  column.  (Elec- 
tion of  1888.)  Such  a division  is  fraught  with 
opportunities  for  mischief,  especially  when  played 
upon  by  political  demagogues.  Questions  of 
finance  and  of  political  economy  have  failed  to 
obliterate  the  dividing  lines  left  by  the  war.  Is  it 
not  hopeless  to  expect  that  anything  short  of  a 
readjustment^  of  voters  along  new  lines  will  ac- 
complish the  desired  result  ? There  is  certainly 
no  issue  now  in  politics  so  likely  to  accomplish 
this  new  alignment  of  parties  as  Prohibition. 

So  far,  then,  from  it’s  being  too  soon  for  the 
new  party,  the  time  is  really  over-due.  The  op- 
portunity is  ripe,  and  has  been  for  years.  A 
more  favoralde  conjunction  of  circumstances  it 
would  be  difficult  to  conceive.  The  yearly  sur- 
plus in  the  Federal  Treasury  just  about  equals  the 
revenue  from  the  Federal  tax  on  liquors.  The 


206 


OTHER  ISSUES  OF  THE  DAI 


removal  of  this  tax,  therefore,  instead  of  requiring 
new  methods  of  taxation,  would  relieve  the  Nation 
of  a heavy  incubus  and  a constant  temptation  to 
extravagance  and  corruption.  No  interests  of  the 
Nation  would  suffer  from  a new  readjustment  of 
voters ; some  of  its  dearest  interests  would  derive 
therefrom  inestimable  gain. 


APPENDIX. 

NOTE  A. 

U.  S.  SUPREME  COURT. 

PETER  MUGLER  1 

V.  I 2 CASES. 

THE  STATE  OF  KANSAS.  J 

AND  tl 

THE  STATE  OF  KANSAS 
V, 

ZIEBOLD  & HA(3ELIN. 

OCTOBER  TERM,  1887. 

Nos.  19  and  20.  Peter  Mugler,  plaintiff  in  error,  v.  The  State  ob- 
Kansas. 

In  error  to  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  State  of  Kansas. 

No.  931.  The  State  op  Kansas  ex  rel.  J.  F.  Tufts.  Assistant  Attor- 
ney-General of  the  State  of  Kansas  for  Atcliison  County,  Kan., 
appellant,  v.  Herman  Ziebold  and  Joseph  Hagelin,  partners  as 
ZiEBOLD  & Hagelin. 

Appeal  from  the  Circuit  Court  of  the  United  States  for  the  District  of 
Kansas. 

Mr.  Justice  Harlan  delivered  the  opinion  of  the  court. 

Tliese  cases  involve  an  inquiry  into  the  validity  of  certain  statutes  of 
Kansas  relating  to  the  manufacture  and  sale  of  intoxicating  liquors. 
The  fir.st  two  are  indictments  charging  Mugler,  the  plaintiff  in  error,  in 
one  case,  with  having  sold,  and  in  the  other,  with  having  manufac- 
tured spirituous,  vinous,  matt,  fermented  and  other  intoxicating 
liquors,  in  Saline  County,  Kansas,  without  having  the  license  or  per- 
mit required  hy  the  statute.  Tlie  defendant,  having  been  found  guilty, 
was  fined  in  each  case  $100,  and  ordered  to  be  committed  to  the  county 
jail  until  the  fine  was  paid.  Each  judgment  was  affirmed  by  the 
Supreme  Court  of  Kansas,  and  thereby  it  is  contended,  the  defendant 
was  denied  rights,  privileges,  and  immunities  guaranteed  by  the  Con- 
stitution of  the  United  States. 

207 


I 1 CASE. 


208 


APPENDIX. 


The  third  case— State  of  Kansas,  ex  rel.,  etc  , v.  Ziehold,  etc.— was 
commenced  by  petition  filed  in  one  of  the  courts  of  the  State.  The 
relief  sought  is: 

1.  That  the  group  of  buildings  constituting  the  brewery  of  the 
defendants,  partners,  as  Ziebold  & Hagelin,  in  Atchison  County,  Kan., 
be  adjudged  a common  nuisance,  and  the  sheriff,  or  other  proper  offi- 
cer, directed  to  shut  up  or  abate  the  same. 

2.  That  the  defendants  be  enjoined  from  using  or  permitting  to  be 
used,  tlie  said  premises  as  a place  where  intoxicating  liquors  may  be 
sold,  bartered  or  given  away,  or  kept  for  barter,  sale,  or  gift,  other- 
wise than  by  authority  of  law. 

The  defendants  answered,  denying  the  allegations  of  the  petition, 
and  averring : 

1.  That  said  buildings  were  erected  by  them  prior  to  the  adoption  by 
the  people  of  Kansas  of  the  Constitutional  Amendment  prohibiting  the 
inunufacture  and  sale  of  intoxicating  liquors  for  other  thanmediciuai, 
scientific,  and  mechanical  purposes,  and  before  the  passage  of  the 
prohibitory  liquor  statute  of  that  State. 

2.  That  they  were  erected  for  the  purpose  of  manufacturing  beer, 
and  cannot  be  put  to  any  other  use ; and,  if  not  so  used,  they  wfll  be  of 
little  value. 

3.  That  the  statute  under  which  said  suit  was  brought,  is  void  under 
the  Fourteenth  Amendment  of  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States. 

The  facts  necessary  to  a clear  understanding  of  the  questions  com- 
mon to  these  cases  are  the  following:  Mugler,  and  Ziebold  & Hagelin 
were  engaged  in  manufacturing  beer  at  their  respective  establish- 
ments (constructed  specially  for  that  purpose)  for  several  years  prior 
to  the  adoption  of  the  Constitutional  Amendment  of  1830.  They  con- 
tinued in  such  business  in  defiance  of  the  statute  of  1881,  and  without 
having  the  required  permit.  Nor  did  Mugler  have  a license  or  permit 
to  sell  beer.  The  single  sale  of  which  he  was  found  guilty  occurred  in 
the  State,  and  after  May  1st,  1881— that  is,  after  the  Act  of  February 
19th,  1881,  took  effect— and  was  of  beer  manufactured  before  its  pass- 
age. 

The  buildings  and  machinery  constituting  these  breweries  are  of 
little  value  if  not  used  for  the  purpose  of  manufacturing  beer;  that  is 
to  say,  if  the  statutes  are  enforced  against  the  defendants  the  value  of 
their  property  will  be  very  materially  diminished. 

The  general  question  in  each  case  is  whether  the  foregoing  statutes 
of  Kansas  are  in  conflict  with  that  clause  of  the  Fom-teenth  Amend- 
ment, whicli  provides  that, 

“ No  State  shall  make  or  enforce  any  law  which  shall  abridge  the 
privileges  or  immunities  of  citizens  of  the  United  States,  nor  shall  any 
State  deprive  any  person  of  life,  liberty,  or  property,  without  due  pro- 
cess of  law.” 


APPENDIX. 


209 


That  legislation  by  a State  prohibiting  the  manufacture  within  her 
limits  of  intoxicating  liquors,  to  be  there  sold  or  bartered  for  general 
use  as  a beverage,  does  not  necessarily  infringe  any  riglit,  privilege, 
or  immunity  secured  by  the  Constitution  of  tlio  United  States,  is  made 
clear  by  the  decisions  of  this  court,  rendered  before  and  since  the 
adoption  of  the  Fourteenth  Amendment;  to  some  of  wliich,  in  view  of 
questions  to  be  presently  considered,  it  will  be  well  to  refer. 

In  the  License  Cases,  5 How.  504.  tlie  question  was  whether  certain 
statutes  of  Massachusetts,  Rhode  Island,  and  New  Hampshire,  relating 
to  the  sale  of  spirituous  liquors,  were  repugnant  to  the  Constitution  of 
the  United  States. 

In  determining  that  question  it  became  necessary  to  inquire  whether 
there  was  any  conflict  between  the  exercise  by  Congress  of  its  power 
to  regulate  commerce  with  foreign  countries,  or  among  the  several 
States,  and  the  exercise  by  a State  of  what  are  called  police  powers. 
Although  the  members  of  the  court  did  not  fully  agree  as  to  the 
grounds  upon  which  the  decision  should  be  placed,  they  were  unani- 
mous in  holding  that  tlie  statutes  then  under  examination  were  not 
inconsistent  with  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  or  with  any 
act  of  Congress.  Cliief  Justice  Taney  said: 

“If  any  State  deems  the  retail  and  internal  traffic  in  ardent  spirits 
injurious  to  its“ citizens,  and  calculated  to  produce  idleness,  vice,  or 
debauchery,  rise eTmtlllng^inTiBe  Constitution  of  the  United  States  to 
prevent  it  from  regulating  and  restraining  the  traffic,  or  from  prohibit- 
ing it  altogether,  if  it  thinks  proper.” 

Mr.  Justice  McLean,  among  other  things,  said: 

“A  State  regulates  its  domestic  commerce,  contracts,  and  transmis- 
sion of  estates,  real  and  personal,  and  acts  upon  internal  matters 
which  relate  to  its  moral  and  political  welfare.  Over  these  subjects 
the  Federal  Government  has  no  power.  The  acknowledged  police 
power  of  a State  extends  often  to  the  destruction  of  property-  A 
nuisance  may  be  abated.  Everything  prejudicial  to  the  health  or  mor- 
als of  a city  may  be  removed.” 

Mr.  Justice  Woodbury  observed: 

“ How  can  they  (the  States)  be  sovereign  within  their  respective 
spheres,  without  power  to  regulate  all  their  internal  commerce,  as 
well  as  police,  and  direct  how,  when  and  where  it  shall  be  conducted 
in  articles  intimately  connected  either  with  public  morals  or  public 
safety  or  public  prosperity  ?” 

Mr.  Justice  Grier,  in  still  more  emphatic  language,  said: 

“The  true  question  presented  by  these  cases,  and  one  which  lam 
not  disposed  to  evade,  is  whether  the  States  have  a right  to  prohibit 
the  sale  and  consumption  of  an  article  of  commerce  which  they 
believe  to  be  pernicious  in  its  effects,  and  the  cause  of  disease,  pauper- 
ism, and  crime.  Without  attempting  to  define  what  are  the  peculiar 
subjects  or  limits  of  this  power,  it  may  safely  be  affirmed  that  every 
law  for  the  restraint  or  punishment  of  crime,  for  the  preservation  of 
the  public  peace,  healWi,  and  morals,  must  come  within  this  category. 

u 


210 


APPENDIX. 


“It  is  not  necessary,  for  the  sake  of  justifying  the  State  legislation 
now  under  consideration,  to  array  the  appalling  statistics  of  misery, 
pauperism,  and  crime  which  have  their  origin  in  the  use  or  abuse  of 
ardent  spirits.  The  police  power,  which  is  exclusively  in  the  States,  is 
alone  competent  to  the  correction  of  these  great  evils,  and  all  meas- 
ures of  restraint  or  prohibition  necessary  to  effect  the  purpose,  ar* 
within  the  scope  of  that  authority.” 

In  Bartemeyer  v.  Iowa,  18  Wall.  129,  it  was  said  that  prior  to  the 
adoption  of  the  Fourteenth  Amendment,  State  enactments,  regulating 
or  prohibiting  the  traffic  in  intoxicating  liquors,  raised  no  question 
under  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States;  and  that  such  legislation 
was  left  to  the  discretion  of  the  respective  States,  subject  to  no  other 
limitations  than  those  imposed  by  their  own  Constitutions,  or  by  the 
general  principles  supposed  to  limit  all  legislative  power.  Referring 
to  the  contention  that  the  right  to  sell  intoxcating  liquors  was  secured 
by  the  Fourteenth  Amendment,  the  court  said  that  “so  far  as  such  a 
right  exists,  it  is  not  one  of  the  rights  growing  out  of  citizenship  of  the 
United  States.”  In  Beer  Company  v.  Massachusetts,  97  U.  S.  33,  it  was 
said  that,  “as  a measure  of  police  regulation,  looking  to  the  preserva- 
tion of  pubHc  morals,  a State'Maw  prohibiting  the  manufacture  and 
sale  of  intoxicating  liquors  is  not  repugnant  to  any  clause  of  the  Con- 
stitution of  the  United  States.” 

Finally,  in  Foster  v.  Kansas,  112  U.  S.  206,  the  court  said  that  the 
question  as  to  the  constituticmiUpower  of  a State  to  prohibit  the  manu- 
facture and  sale  of  intoxicatinglTquors  was  no  longer  an  open  one  in 
this  court.  These  cases  rest  upon  the  acknowledged  right  of  the 
several  States  of  the  Union  to  control  their  purely  internal  affairs, 
and,  i»  so  doing,  to  protect  the  health,  morals,  and  safety  of  their  peo- 
ple by  regulations  that  do  not  interfere  with  the  execution  of  the  pow- 
ers of  the  General  Government,  or  violate  rights  secured  by  the  Con- 
stitution of  the  United  States.'  The  power  to  establish  such  regulations, 
as  was  said  in  Gibbons''^.  Ogden,  9 Wheat.  203,  reaches  everything 
within  the  territory  of  a State  not  surrendered  to  the  Fational  Gov- 
ernment. 

It  is,  however,  contended  that,  although  the  State  may  prohibit  the 
manufacture  of  intoxicating  liquors  for  sale  or  barter  within  her  limits, 
for  general  use  as  a beverage,  “no  convention  or  Legislature  has  the 
right,  under  our  form  of  government,  to  prohibit  any  citizen  from 
manufacturing  for  his  own  useTof  for  export,  or  storage  any  article  of 
food  or  drink  not  endangering  or  affecting  the  rights  of  others.”  The 
argument  made  in  support  of  the  first  branch  of  this  proposition 
briefly  stated,  is: 

That  in  the  implied  compact  between  the  State  and  the  citizen,  cer- 
tain rights  are  reserved  by  the  latter  which  are  guaranteed  by  the 
constitutional  provision  protecting  persons  against  being  deprived  of 
life,  liberty  or  property,  without  due  process  of  law,  and  with  which 
the  State  cannot  interfere ; that  among  those  rights  is  that  of  manu- 
facturing for  one’s  own  use  either  food  or  drink ; and  that  while, 


APPENDIX. 


211 


according  to  the  doctrines  ot  the  Commune,  the  State  may  control  the 
tastes,  appetites,  h.abits,  dress,  food,  and  drink  of  tlie  people,  our  sys- 
tem of  government,  based  upon  the  individuality  and  intelligence  of 
the  citizen,  does  not  claim  to  control  him,  except  as  to  ids  conduct  to 
others,  leaving  iiim  the  sole  judge  as  roslTthatnnty  affects  liimself. 

It  will  be  observed  that  the  proposition,  and  tlie  argument  made  in 
suiiport  of  it,  equally  concede  that  tlie  right  to  manufacture  drink  for 
personal  use  is  subject  to  the  condition  tliat  such  manufacture  does 
iKit  endanger  or_affect  the  rights  of  others.  If  sucli  mamifacture  does 
prejudicially  affect  the  rights  and  interests  of  the  community,  it  fol- 
lows, from  the  very  premises  stated,  that  society  lias  the  power  to  pro- 
tect itself,  by  legislation,  against  the  injurious  consequences  of  that 
business.  As  was  said  in  Munn  v.  Illinois,  94  U.  S.  124:  “ While  power 
does  not  exist  with  the  whole  people  to  control  rights  tliat  are  purely  and 
exclusively  private,  Government  may  require  each  citizen  to  so  con- 
duct himself,  and  so  use  his  own  property,  as  not  unnecessarily  to 
injure  another.” 

But  by  whom,  or  by  what  authority,  is  it  to  be  determined  whether 
the  manufacture  of  particular  articles  of  drink,  either  for  general  use 
or  for  the  personal  use  of  the  maker,  will  injuriously  affect  the  public? 
Power  to  determine  such  questions,  so  as  to  bind  all,  must  existsome- 
where  ; else  society  will  be  at  the  mercy  of  the  tew,  wlio,  regarding 
only  their  own  appetites  or  passions,  may  be  willing  to  imperil  the 
peace  and  security  of  the  many,  provided  only  they  are  permitted  to 
do  as  they  please.-  Under  our  system  that  power  is  lodged  with  the 
legislative  branch  of  the  Government.  It  belongs  to  that  department 
to  exert  wliat  are  known  as  the  police  powers  of  the  State,  and  to  de- 
termine, primarily,  what  measures  are  appropriate  or  needful  lor  the 
protection  of  the  public  morals,  the  public  healtli,  or  the  public 
safety. 

It  does  not  at  all  follow  that  every  statute  enacted  ostensibly  for 
the  promotion  of  tliese  ends,  is  to  be  accepted  as  a legitimate  exertion 
of  the  police,  powers  of  the  State.  Tiiere  aie,  of  necessity,  limits  be- 
yond which  legislation  cannot  rightfully  go.  While  every  possible 
presumption  is  to  be  indulged  in  favor  of  the  validity  ot  a statute. 
Sinking  Fund  Cases,  99  U.  S.  718,  the  courts  must  obey  the  Constitution 
ratiier  than  the  law-making  department  ot  Government,  and  must, 
upon  their  responsibility,  determine  whether,  in  any  particular  case, 
these  limits  have  been  pas^d, 

“To  wliat  purpose,”  it  was  said  in  Marbury  v.  Madison,  1 Cranch, 
137,  167,  ‘‘are  powers  limited,  and  to  what  purpose  is  that  limitation 
committed  to  writing,  if  these  limits  may,  at  any  time,  be  passed  by 
those  intended  to  be  restrained  ? The  distinction  between  a govern- 
ment with  limited  and  unliniit^powers  is  abolislied,  it  those  limits 
do  not  confine  the  persons  oh'vvhom  they  are  imposed,  and  if  acts  pro- 
hibited and  acts  allowed  are  of  equal  obligation.”  The  courts  are  not 
bound  by  mere  forms,  nor  are  tliey  to  be  misled  by  mere  pretences. 
They  are  at  liberty— indeed,  are  under  a solemn  duty— to  look  at  th^ 


212 


APPENDIX. 


substance  of  things,  whenever  they  enter  upon  the  inquiry  whether 
the  Legislature  has  transcended  the  limits  of  its  autlioiity.  If,  there- 
fore, a statute  purporting  to  have  been  enacted  to  protect  the  public 
health,  the  public  morals  or  tlie  public  safety,  has  no  real  or  substant- 
ial relation  to  those  objects,  oi  is  a palpable,  invasion  of  riglits  secured 
by  the  fundamentaj.law,  it  is  the  duty  of  the  courts  to  so  adjudge,  and 
thereby  give  effe(^t  to  the  Constitution. 

Keeping  in  view  these  principles  as  governing  the  relations  of  the 
judicial  and  legislative  departments  of  Government  with  eacli  other, 
it  is  difficult  to  perceive  any  ground  tor  the  judiciary  to  declare  tat 
the  prohibition  by  Kansas  of  the  manufacture  or  sale  witliin  her  limits 
of  intoxicating  liquors  for  general  use  there  as  a beverage,  is  not 
fairly  adapted  to  the  end  of  protecting  the  community  against  the 
evils  which  confessedly  result  from  the  excessive  use  of  ardent  spirits. 
There  is  here  no  justification  for  holding  that  the  State,  under  the 
guise  merely  of  police  regulations,  is  aiming  to  deprive  tlie  citizen  of 
his  constitutional  rights:  for  we  cannot  shut  out  of  view  the  fact, 
within  the  knowledge  of  all,  that  the  public  health,  the  public' morals, 
and  tlie  public  safety,'  may  be  endangered  by  the  general  use  of  intox- 
icating drinks;  nor  the  fact,  established  by  statistics  accessible  to 
every  one,  that  the  disorder,  pauperism,  and  crime  prevalent  in  the 
country,  are  in  some  degree  at  least  traceable  to  this  evil. 

If,  tlierefore,  a State  deems  the  absolute  prohibition  of  the  manufac- 
ture and  sale  within  her  limits  of  intoxicating  liquors  for  other  than 
medical,  scientific,  and  manufacturing  purposes,  to  be  necessary  to 
tlie  peace  and  security  of  society,  the  courts  cannot,  without  usurping 
legislative  functions,  override  the  will  of  the  people  as  thus  expressed 
by  their  chosen  representatives.  They  have  nothing  to  do  with  the 
mere  policy  of  legislation.  Indeed,  it  is  a fundamental  principle  in 
our  institutions,  indispensable  to  the  preservation  of  public  liberty, 
that  one  of  the  separate  departments  of  Government  SHall  not  usurp 
powers  committed  by  the  Constitution  to  another  department.  And 
so,  if,  in  the  judgment  of  tlie  Legislature,  the  manufacture  of  intoxi- 
cating liquors  for  the  maker’s  own  use  as  a beverage,  would  tend  to 
cripple,  if  it  did  not  defeat,  the  effort  to  guard  the  community  against 
the  evils  attending  the  excessive  use  of  such  liquors,  it  is  not  for 
the  courts,  upon  tlieir  views  as  to  what  is  best  and  safest  for  the  com- 
munity, to  disregard  the  legislative  determination  of  that  question. 
»*»****»»• 

The  power  which  the  States  unquestionably  have  of  prohibiting  such 
use  by  individuals  of  their  property  as  will  be  prejudicial  to  the  health, 
the  morals,  or  the  safety  of  the  public,  is  not,  and— consistently  with 
the  existence  and  safety  of  organized  society— cannot  be  burdened 
with  the  condition  that  tlie  State  must  compensate  such  individual 
owners  for  pecuniary  losses  they  sustain,  by  reason  of  their  not  being 
permitted  by  a noxious  use  of  their  property,  to  inflict  injury  upon  the 
community.  The  e.xercise  of  the  police  power  by  the  destruction  of 
property  which  is  itself  a public  nuisandejUTTtre  prohibition  of  its  use 


APPENDIX. 


213 


In  a particular  way,  whereby  its  value  becomes  depreciated,  is  very 
different  from  taking  property  for  public  use,  or  from  depriving  a per- 
son of  his  pi  operty  without  due  process  of  law.  In  the  one  case,  a 
nuisance  only  is  abated ; in  tiie  other,  unoffending  property  is  taken 
away  from  an  innocent  owner. 

It  is  true,  that,  when  tlie  defendants  in  these  cases  purchased  or 
erected  tlieir  breweries,  the  laws  of  the  State  did  not  forbid  tlie  man- 
ufacture of  intoxicating  li(|uors.  But  the  State  did  not  thereby  give 
any  assurance,  or  come  under  an  obligation,  that  its  legislation  upon 
that  subject  would  remain  unclianged.  Indeed,  as  was  said  in  Stone 
V.  Mississippi,  101  U.  S.,  the  supervision  of  the  public  health  and  the 
public  morals  is  a Governmental  iiower,  “ continuing  in  its  nature," 
and  “to  be  dealt  with  as  the  special  exigencies  of  the  moment  may 
require;”  and  that,  “for  this  purpose,  the  largest  legislative  discre- 
tion is  allowed,  and  the  discretion  cannot  be  parted  with  any  more 
than  the  power  itself.” 

So  in  Beer  Company  v.  Massachusetts,  97  U.  S.  32: 

“If  the  public  safety  or  the  public  morals  require  the  discontinu- 
ance of  any  manufacture  or  traffic,  the  hand  of  the  Legislature  cannot 
be  stayed  from  providing  for  its  discontinuance  by  any  incidental  in- 
convenience which  individuals  or  corporations  may  suffer.” 

It  now  remains  to  consider  certain  questions  relating  particularly 
to  the  thirteenth  section  of  the  Act  of  1885.  Tliat  section  is  as  follows: 

“Section  13.  All  places  where  intoxicating  liquors  are  manufac- 
tured, sold,  bartered  or  given  away  in  violation  of  any  of  the  provis- 
ions of  this  act,  or  where  intoxicating  liquors  are  kept  for  sale,  barter 
or  delivery  in  violation  of  tliis  act,  are  hereby  declared  to  be  common 
nuisances,  and  upon  the  judgment  of  any  court  having  jurisdiction 
finding  such  place  to  be  a nuisance  under  tliis  section,  the  sheriff,  his 
deputy,  or  under-sheriff,  or  any  constable  of  the  proper  county,  or 
marshal  of  any  city  where  the  same  is  located,  shall  be  directed  to 
shut  up  and  abate  such  place  by  taking  possession  thereof  and  de- 
stroying all  intoxicating  liquors  found  therein,  togetlier  witli  all  signs, 
screens,  bars,  bottles,  glasses,  and  other  property  used  in  keeping  and 
maintaining  said  nuisance:  and  the  owner  or  keeper  tliereof  sliall, 
upon  conviction,  be  adjudged  guilty  of  maintaining  a common  nui- 
sance, and  shall  be  punished  by  a fine  of  not  less  than  SlOO,  nor  more 
than  $500,  and  by  imprisonment  in  the  county  jail  not  less  than  thirty 
days  nor  more  than  ninety  days.  The  Attorney-General,  County 
Attorney,  or  any  citizen  of  1 ;e  county  where  such  nui.sance  exists,  oi- 
ls kept,  or  is  maintained,  may  maintain  an  action  in  the  name  of  tlie 
State  to  abate  and  perpetually  enjoin  the  same.  The  injunction  shall 
be  granted  at  the  commencement  of  the  action,  and  no  bond  shall  be 
required.  Any  iierson  violating  the  terrasof  any  in  junction  granted  in 
such  proceeding,  shall  be  punished  as  for  contempt,  by  a line  of  not 
less  than  $100  nor  more  than  $500,  or  by  imprisonment  in  the  county 
jail  not  less  than  thirty  days  nor  more  tlian  six  months,  or  by  both 
such  fine  and  imprisonment,  in  the  discretion  of  the  court  ” 


214 


APPENDIX. 


It  is  contended  in  the  case  of  Kansas  v.  Ziehold  & Hagelln,  that  the 
entire  sclieme  of  this  section  is  an  attempt  to  deprive  persons  who 
come  within  its  provisions  of  their  property  and  of  tiieir  liberty  with- 
out due  process  of  law;  especiaily,  when  taken  in  connection  with 
that  clause  of  Section  14  (amendatory  of  Section  21  of  the  Act  of  1881) 
which  provides  that  “in  prosecutions  under  this  act,  by  indictmentor 
otherwise  ...  it  shall  not  be  necessary  in  the  first  instance  tor 
the  State  to  prove  that  the  party  charged  did  not  have  a permit  to  sell 
intoxicating  liquors  for  the  excepted  purposes.” 

We  are  unable  to  perceive  anything  in  these  regulations  inconsist, 
ent  with  the  constitutional  guaraureCs  of  liberty  and  property.  The 
State  having  authority  to  prohibit  the  manufacture  and  sale  of  intoxi- 
cating liquors  for  other  than  medical,  scientific,  and  mecharncal 
purposes,  we  do  not  doubt  her  power  to  declare  that  any  place,  kept 
and  maintained  tor  the  illegal  manufacture  and  sale  of  such  liquors, 
shall  be  deemed  a common  nuisance,  and  be  abated,  and  at  the  same 
time  to  provide  for  the  indictment  and  trial  of  tlie  offender.  One  is  a 
proceeding  against  the  property  used  for  forbidden  purposes,  while  the 
otlier  is  for  tlie  punishment  of  the  offender. 

It  is  said  tliat  by  the  thirteentli  section  of  the  Act  of  1885,  the  Legis- 
lature, finding  a brewery  witiiin  the  State  in  actual  operation,  without 
notice,  trial,  or  hearing,  by  tiie  iiiere  exercise  of  its  arbitrary  caprice, 
declares  it  to  be  a common  nuisance,  and  then  prescribes  the  conse- 
quences which  are  to  follow  inevitably  by  judicial  mandate  reiiuired 
by  the  statute,  and  involving  and  permitting  the  exercise  of  no  judi- 
cial discretion  or  judgment;  that,  the  brewery  being  found  in  opera- 
tion, the  court  is  not  to  determine  whether  it  is  a common  nuisance, 
but,  under  the  command  of  the  statute,  is  to  find  it  to  be  one  ; that  iti? 
not  the  liquor  made,  or  the  making  of  it,  which  is  thus  enacted  to  be 
a common  nuisance,  but  the  place  itself.  Including  all  the 
property  used  in  keeping  and  maintaining  the  common 
nuisance;  that  the  judge,  having  thus  signed  without  inquiry, 
and  it  may  be  against  the  fact  and  against  his  own 
judgment,  the  edict  of  the  Legislature,  the  court  is  commanded  by  its 
officers  to  take  possession  of  the  place  and  shut  it  up : nor  is  all  this 
destruction  of  property,  by  legislative  edict,  to  be  made  as  a forfeiture 
consequent  upon  conviction  of  any  offence,  but  merely  because  the 
Legislature  so  commands;  and  it  is  done  by  a court  of  equity,  without 
any  previous  conviction  first  had,  or  any  trial  known  to  tlie  law. 

This,  certainly,  is  a formidable  arraignment  of  the  legislation  of 
Kansas,  and  if  it  were  founded  upon  a just  interpretation  of  her  star 
utes,  the  court  would  have  no  difficulty  in  declaring  that  they  could 
not  be  enforced  without  infringing  the  constitutional  rights  of  theciti' 
zen.  ■" 

But  these  statutes  have  no  such  scope  and  are  not  attended  with 
any  such  results  as  the  defendants  suppose.  The  court  is  not  required 
to  give  effect  to  a legislative  “ decree  ” or  “ edict,”  unless  every  enact- 
ment by  the  law-making  power  of  a State  is  to  be  so  characterized. 


APPENDIX. 


216 


It  is  not  declared  that  every  establishment  is  to  be  aeemed  a com- 
mon nuisance,  because  it  may  have  been  inaintaiued  prior  to  the  pas- 
sage of  the  statute  as  a place  for  nianufacturiug  intoxicating  liquors. 
The  statute  is  prospective  in  its  operation— that  is,  it  does  not  put  the 
brand  of  a common  nuisance  upon  any  place,  unless,  after  its  passage, 
that  place  is  kept  and  maintained  for  purposes  declared  by  tlie  Legis- 
lature to  be  injurious  to  the  community.  Nor  is  the  court  required  to 
adjudge  any  place  to  be  a common  nuisance  simply  because  it  is 
charged  by  the  State  to  be  such.  It  must  first  find  it  to  be  of  tliat 
character— that  is,  must  ascertain,  in  some  legal  mode,  whether,  since 
the  statute  was  passed,  the  place  in  question  has  been,  or  is  being  so 
used,  as  wouid  make  it  a common  nuisance. 

Equally  tenable  is  the  proposition  that  proceedings  in  equity  for  the 
purposes  indicated  in  the  thirteenth  section  of  the  statute  are  incon- 
sistent with  due  process  of  law. 

“ In  regard  to  public  nuisances,”  Mr.  Justice  Story  says,  “ the  juris- 
diction of  courts  of  equity  seems  to  be  of  a very  ancient  date,  and  has 
been  distinctly  traced  back  to  the  reign  of  Queen  Elizabeth.  The 
jurisdiction  is  applicable  not  only  to  public  nuisances,  strictiy  so 
called,  but  also  to  purprestures  upon  public  rights  and  property. 
In  case  of  public  nuisances  properly  so  called,  an  indictment  lies 
to  abate  them,  and  to  punish  the  offenders.  But  an  information  also 
lies  iu  equity  to  redress  the  grievance  by  way  of  injunction.”  2 Story’s 
Eq.,  sections  921,  922. 

The  ground  of  this  jurisdiction  in  cases  of  purpresture,  as  well  as  of 
public  nuisances,  is  the  ability  of  courts  of  equity  to  give  a more  speedy, 
effectual,  and  permanent  remedy  than  can  be  had  at  law.  They  can 
not  only  prevent  nuisances  that  are  threatened,  and  before  irrepar- 
ble  mischief  ensues,  but  arrest  or  abate  those  in  progress,  and  by  per- 
petual injunction,  protect  the  public  against  them  in  the  future;  where- 
as courts  of  law  can  only  reacli  existing  nuisances,  leaving  future  acts 
to  be  the  subject  of  new  prosecutions  or  proceedings.  This  is  a salu- 
tary jurisdiction,  especially  where  a nuisance  affects  the  health,  mor- 
als or  safety  of  the  community.  Though  not  Irequentiy  exercised, the 
power  undoubtedly  exists  in  courts  of  equity  thus  to  jirotect  the  pub- 
lic against  injury:  District  Attorney  y.  Lynn  and  Boston  R.  R.  Co.,  16 
Gray,  245;  Att’y  Gen’l  y.  N.  J.  Railroad,  3 Green’s  Cli.  139;  Att’y  Gen- 
eral V.  Tudor  Ice  Co.,  104  Mass.  244 ; State  y. Mayor,  5 Porter  (Ala.),  279, 
294;  Hoole  y.  Att’y  General,  22  Ala.  194 ; Att’y  General  y.  Hunter,  1 
Dev.  Eq.  13;  Att’y  Gen’l  y.  Forbes,  2 Mylne  & Craig,  123,  129,  133;  Att’y 
Gen’l  y.  Great  Northern  Railway  Co.,  1 Dr.  & Sm.  161;  Eden  oulujunc- 
(ious,  259;  Kerr  on  Injunctions  (2d  Ed.),  168. 

As  to  the  objection  that  tiie  statute  makes  no  provision  for  a jury 
(rial  in  cases  like  this  one,  it  is  sufficient  to  say  that  such  a mode  of 
trial  is  not  required  iu  smtsin  equity  brought  to  enjoin  a public  nui- 
sance. The  statutory  direction  that  an  injunction  issue  at  the  com- 
mencement of  the  action  is  not  to  be  constructed  as  dispensing  with 
such  preliminary  proof  as  is  necessary  to  authorize  an  injunction 


216 


APPENDIX. 


pending  the  suit.  The  coni  t is  not  to  issue  an  injunction  simply  oe- 
cause  one  is  asked,  or  because  tl)e  charge  is  made  that  a common  nui- 
sance is  maintained  in  violation  of  law.  The  statute  leaves  tl>e  court 
at  liberty  to  give  eifect  to  tiie  principle  that  an  injunction  will  not  be 
granted  to  restrain  a nuisance,  except  upon  clear  and  satisfactory  evi- 
dence tliat  one  exists.  Here  the  fact  to  be  ascertained  was,  not 
whetlier  a place,  kept  and  maintained  tor  the  purposes  forbidden  by 
the  statute,  was,  per  se,  a nuisance— that  fact  being  conclusively  de- 
termined by  tlie  statute  itself— but  whether  the  place  in  question  was 
so  kept  and  maintained.  If  the  proof  upon  that  point  is  not  full  or 
sufticient,  the  cgurt  can  refuse  an  injunction,  or  postpone  action  until 
tile  State  first  obtains  tlie  verdict  of  a jury  in  her  favor. 

In  this  case,  it  cannot  be  denied  tliat  the  defendants  kept  and  main- 
tained a place  that  is  within  the  statutory  delinition  of  a common  nui- 
sance. Their  petition  for  the  removal  of  the  cause  from  the  State 
court,  and  tlieir  answer  to  tlie  bill,  admitted  every  tact  necessary  to 
maintain  this  suit,  if  the  statute  under  which  it  was  brought  was  con- 
stitutional. 

Touching  the  provision  that  in  prosecutions,  by  indictment  or  other- 
wise, the  State  need  not.  in  the  first  instance,  prove  that  the  defendant 
has  the  permit  required  by  the  the  statute,  we  may  remark  that,  if  it 
has  any  application  to  a proceeding  like  this,  it  does  not  deprive  him 
of  the  presumption  that  he  is  innocent  of  any  violation  of  law.  It  is 
only  a declaration  that  when  the  State  has  proved  that  the  place  de- 
scribed is  kept  and  maintained  for  the  manufacture  or  sale  of  intoxi- 
cating liquors— such  manufacture  or  sale  being  unlawful  except  for 
specified  purposes,  and  then  only  under  a permit — the  prosecution 
need  not  prove  a negative,  namely,  that  the  defendant  has  not  the  re- 
quired license  or  permit.  If  the  defendant  has  such  license  or  permit, 
he  can  easily  produce  it,  and  thus  overthrow  the  prima  facie  case  es- 
tablished by  tlie  State. 

A portion  of  the  argument  in  behalf  of  the  defendants  is  to  the  effect 
tliat  the  statutes  of  Kansas  forbid  the  manufacture  of  intoxicating 
liquors  to  be  exported,  or  to  be  carried  to  other  States,  and  upon  that 
ground  are  repugnant  to  the  elauseof  the  Constitutiou  of  the  United 
Statesgiving  Congress  power  to  regulate  commerce  with  foreign  nations 
and  among  tlie  several  States.  We  need  only  say,  upon  this  point, 
that  there  is  no  intimation  in  tlie  record  that  the  beer  which  the  re- 
spective defendants  manufactured  was  intended  to  be  carried  out  of 
tlie  State  or  to  foreign  countries.  And,  without  expressing  an  opinion 
as  to  wlietlier  such  facts  would  have  constituted  a good  defence,  we 
observe  that  it  will  be  time  enough  to  decide  a case  of  that  character 
when  it  shall  come  before  us. 

For  tlie  reasons  stated,  we  are  of  opinion  that  the  judgments  of  the 
Supreme  Court  of  Kansas  have  not  denied  to  Mugler,  the  plaiutiflf  in 
error,  any  right,  privilege,  or  iiiimuiiity  secured  to  him  by  the  Consti- 
tution of  the  United  States,  and  its  judgment,  in  each  case,  is  accord- 
ingly aflinned, 


APPENDIX. 


217 


We  are,  also,  of  opinion  that  the  Circuit  Court  of  the  United  States 
erred  in  dismissing  the  bill  of  the  State  against  Ziebold  & Hagelin. 
The  decree  in  that  case  is  reversed  and  the  cause  remavided,  with  di- 
rections to  enter  a decree  granting  to  the  State  such  relief  as  the  Act 
of  March  7, 1885,  authorizes 
It  is  so  ordered. 


218 


NOTE  B. 

POLICE  STATISTICS  FOR  FIFTY-EIGHT  AMERICAN  CITIES. 


Cities. 

License  Pee  for  ordin- 
ary Saloons. 

Number  Licensed  Sa- 

loons. 

Population,  1887. 

o 

a 

.2 

"a  5 
a o 

o 
o ^ 

a 

Total  number  Arrests 

in  1886. 

No.  Arrests  for  Drunk- 

enness, Disor.  Con. 
and  Assault. 

o 

.£  i 
? ~ 

c 

2: 

Little  Rock 

SI, 000  00 

47 

25,877 

550 

2,013 

990 

493 

53 

13 

Hannibal 

850  OC 

35 

16.502 

471 

641 

641 

227 

6S 

20 

Austin 

600  OC 

52 

23,000 

443 

1,252 

971 

421 

55 

18 

Bloomington 

600  OC 

52 

22.000 

423 

909 

556 

311 

71 

24 

Rockford 

600  00 

24 

19,500 

812 

352 

247 

16S 

116 

55 

St.  Louis 

550  00 

1,600 

500,000 

375 

19,031 

9,305 

3,247 

151 

26 

Brockton 

501  00 

18 

20,78;] 

154 

959 

775 

681 

31 

22 

Aurora 

500  00 

37 

19,000 

514 

428 

292 

20S 

9S 

44 

500  00 

3,760 

800, OOC 

212 

■:0.998 

25,407 

*24,407 

20 

Peoria. 

500  00 

150 

33,000 

220 

2,618 

957 

'560 

59 

13 

Oiiincv 

500  00 

103 

34,500 

335 

869 

565 

202 

in 

39 

Springfield  (Rl.) 

500  00 

112 

30,000 

268 

.3.002 

1,027 

512 

59 

99 

Wheeling 

450  00 

130 

32, OOC 

246 

1,409 

*1,0C0 

336 

95 

23 

375  00 

2,695 

390,406 

23  429 

19,835 

13,30^ 

2? 

17 

Chelsea 

350  00 

30 

25,709 

857 

1,197 

816 

'714 

36 

21 

Grand  Rapids 

'0  50 

150 

50,000 

306 

1.415 

948 

708 

71 

35 

Detroit 

,00  00 

1,026 

■'33,20£ 

130 

6.845 

5,850 

4,101 

32 

19 

East  Saginaw 

300  OC 

187 

29,141 

loo 

1..52C 

797 

549 

53 

19 

Haverhill 

300  00 

84 

21,795 

259 

794 

585 

489 

45 

29 

Lowell 

300  00 

4-30 

64,051 

14& 

3,:39.5 

2,504 

2,260 

29 

19 

Saginaw 

300  00 

62 

13,267 

232 

54C 

212 

138 

99 

25 

Waltham 

300  00 

8 

14,609 

1,824 

467 

305 

270 

54 

31 

Holyoke 

225  00 

JOO 

27,894 

232 

1.223 

949 

687 

124 

23 

Covington 

200  00 

180 

35, OOC 

104 

1,096 

901 

.343 

102 

32 

200  XI 

30C 

45,OOC 

15C 

3,051 

1,861 

24 

New  Britain 

200  00 

106 

17,000 

160 

457 

344 

148 

115 

35 

New  Haven 

200  00 

350 

70,000 

200 

5.802 

4.273 

3,122 

22 

12 

New  London 

200  00 

59 

12,000 

203 

892 

609 

449 

24 

13 

Newport  (Ky.) 

200  00 

H8 

20,500 

173 

736 

522 

90 

227 

28 

Norwich 

200  00 

90 

15,112 

168 

796 

556 

383 

39 

19 

Racine 

200  00 

96 

19,636 

204 

211 

211 

146 

134 

93 

Savannah  

200  00 

225 

45,000 

200 

1,968 

1,068 

499 

100 

23 

Waterbury 

200  00 

194 

26,000 

1.34 

1.587 

917 

610 

42 

16 

Fall  River 

190  00 

358 

58,863 

164 

2,367 

1,997 

1,455 

40 

29 

New  Albany  (Ind.). 

150  00 

62 

20,000 

322 

123 

210 

New  Bedford 

150  00 

63 

33'393 

5.30 

1,1.51 

945 

807 

41 

30 

Ogdensburg  (N.  T.). 

150  00 

41 

11.000 

268 

t200 

t224 

90 

122 

42 

Butfalo 

125  00 

1,9^ 

225  000 

168 

9,544 

5,324 

2,803 

80 

22 

Evansville 

125  00 

76 

40,000 

533 

1,884 

863 

385 

104 

21 

Lafayette 

125  00 

2.36 

21,000 

89 

7ol 

227 

188 

112 

28 

Wilmington 

100  00 

211 

42,478 

201 

2,057 

1,315 

638 

65 

20 

Yonkers. 

100  00 

136 

20,000 

147 

940 

624 

383 

52 

21 

Poughkeepsie 

95  00 

82 

20,207 

246 

445 

230 

174 

615 

45 

Binghamp’ton 

75  00 

141 

22,361 

158 

972 

782 

566 

39 

23 

Brooklyn 

75  00 

3,080 

t800,000 

266 

25,709 

16,582 

12,044 

66 

31 

New  York 

75  00 

9,199 

1,350,000 

147 

73,928 

31,2:37 

18,198 

147 

19 

Paterson 

75  00 

600 

§70,000 

116 

2.688 

1,974 

827 

84 

25 

Baltimore 

50  75 

2,250 

365,000 

162 

27.200 

20,649 

8,247 

45 

14 

Allentown 

50  00 

24 

25,000 

1,042 

345 

216 

112 

223 

72 

Cumberland 

50  00 

75 

12,000 

160 

481 

423 

392 

31 

25 

Jersey  City 

50  00 

1,036 

15.3,513 

146 

5,894 

4,287 

1,5?2 

82 

26 

Memphis 

50  00 

200 

60,000 

300 

6,263 

2,253* 

1,074 

56 

10 

Orange 

50  00 

94 

15,231 

162 

848 

547 

354 

43 

18 

Syracuse 

50  00 

530 

77,000 

145 

3,785 

2,304 

1,609 

48 

20 

Cohoes 

40  00 

155 

21,426 

145 

601 

404 

144 

149 

35 

Albany 

30  00 

893 

96,336 

105 

4,460 

2,610 

1.867 

52 

21 

Hoboken 

27  00 

338 

37,721 

112 

1,840 

1,305 

566 

66 

20 

Scranton 

20  00 

100 

65,000 

650 

1,245 

972 

914 

n 

52 

Total 

34,514 

5,315,777 

304,279 

217,580 

48 

100 

T8 

61 

70 

48 

81 

69 

62 


73 

72 

71 

70 

100 

54 

58 

84 


82 

84 

56 

45 

.30 

64 

66 

53 

SO 

66 

42 

74 

76 

63 
88 

35 

64 
61 
67 
59 
71 


* For  drunkenness  and  disorderly  conduct,  t For  nine  months  onlv.  + Based  on  official 
estimates  of  one  year  ago,  § Based  on  increase  from  1870  to  1880. 


; ss : i a a a ss  ss  s 8 71  sf  S5  s 


APPENDIX. 


219 


NOTE  C. 


The  following  is  the  process  by  which  can  be  computed  the  number 
of  persons' in  each  of  the  four  classes  “temperate  drinkers,”  “careless 
drinkers,”  “free  drinkers,”  and  “habitually  intemperate,”  in  England 
and  Wales. 

We  know  the  total  number  of  deaths  of  males  over  25  years  to  be,  by 
the  offiicial  reports,  261,066. 

We  know  also  the  number  of  deaths  of  males  over  25  years  of  age  in 
each  class  to  have  been  (approximately)  101,430,  69,111,  40,163,  and 
40,263  respectively.  If  we  had  the  rate  of  mortality  in  each  class,  it 
would  be  a simple  thing,  of  course,  to  compute  from  the  number  of 
deaths  the  number  of  the  living.  But  we  have  only  the  comparative 
rate  of  morality  from  the  report  of  the  British  Medical  Association,  as 
follows : 


TABLE  IX.  AVERAGE  AGE  AT  DEATH  FOR  EACH  CLASS. 


Class  A 

“ AB 

“ B 

“ BC 

“ C 

“ CD 

“ D 

“ DE 

“ E 

Unclassified, 


51.22  years. 
56.72  “ 

62.13  “ 

62.42  “ 

59.67  “ 

60.35  “ 

57.59  “ 

53.64  “ 

52.03  “ 

60.91  “ 


In  this  table  classes  A,  B,  C,  D,  and  E represent  respectively  the 
total  abstainers,  tlie  temperate  drinkers,  the  careless  drinkers,  the  free 
drinkers,  and  the  habitually  intemperate.  When  there  was  doubt  in 
whicli  of  two  classes  to  place  the  death,  it  was  referred  to  one  of  the 
subordinate  classes  AB,  BC,  CD,  or  DE.  For  instance,  if  there  was 
doubt  whether  tlie  man  belonged  to  Class  B or  Class  C he  was  put  in  Class 
BC.  Tlie  number  of  deaths  in  each  of  these  classes  was  as  follows: 

122  deaths. 

64  “ 

1529  “ 

178  “ 

977  “ 

112  “ 

647  “ 

100  “ 

603  “ 

12  “ 


Class  A 

“ AB 

“ B 

“ BC 

“ C 

“ CD 

“ D 

“ DE 

“ E 

Unclassified. 


Total. 


4234 


220 


APPENDIX. 


Counting  one-half  the  cases  in  Class  DE  as  belonging  to  Class  E, 
obtain  the  average  age  at  death  for  this  class  as  follows; 

60  X 53.64=  2,682.00 
603  X 52.03=31,374.09 


653  X 52.15=34,056.09 

This  gives  us  52.15  years  as  the  average  age  at  death  for  the  653  cases 
in  E and  half  DE.  To  obtain  the  age  for  all  the  classes  outside  E and 
one-half  DE  we  have  the  following  figures: 

* 122  X 51.22=  6,248.84 
54  X 56.72=  3,062.88 
1529  X 62.13=94,996.77 
178  X 62.42=11,110.76 
922  X 59.67=58,297.59 
112  X 60.35=  6,7.59.20 
547  X 57.59=31,501.73 
50  X 53.64=  2,682.00 
12  X 60.91=  730.92 


3581X60.15=215,390.69 

This  gives  us,  as  the  average  age  at  death  of  persons  outside  Class 
E,  60.15  years,  and  those  in  Class  E,  52.15  years.  As  the  comparison  be- 
gan at  the  25th  year,  we  find  that  those  in  Class  E live,  on  an  average, 
27.15  years  beyond  that  point,  and  those  ouside.Class  E,  35. 15  years,  or 
8 years  longer. 

Let  X = number  living  in  all  classes  except  Class  E. 

Let  y = yearly  death-rate  for  all  “ “ “ “ 

As  the  number  of  males  over  25  years  of  age  is  about  21.5  per  cent, 
of  total  population,  32,250  will  be  the  number  of  males  over  25  years  in 
a population  of  150,000. 

32,250  — X = number  living  in  Class  E. 
y-l-8-35  y = yearly  death-rate  “ “ “ 

X y = one  third  of  3581,  = 1194 
(y  4-8-36  y)  (32,250  — X)  = 217 , from  which  we  get 
y = .0424,  death-rate  outside  Class  E. 

X=  28,160,  number  persons  “ “ “ 

y4-8-35  y = .052-1- death-rate  in  Class  E. 

3225  — X =4090,numberpersons  “ “ “ 

If  in  a population  of  150,000  there  are  4,090  habitual  intemperate 
drinkers,  in  a population  of  27,870,586  the  number  of  such  persons  will 
be  759,922. 

Computing  in  the  same  manner  the  number  of  persons  in  Class  D 
(including  one-half  CD  and  one-half  DE)  we  find  it  to  be  4,865  in  a 
population  of  150,000  or,  in  the  entire  Nation,  903,917. 


APPENDIX, 


221 


NOTE  D. 

COMMITMENTS  TO  JAIL  FOE  CEIME  IN  CONNECTICUT, 

Compiled  from  Official  Returns  and  Jail  Records,  by  E.  P.  Augur, 
Middletown,  Conn. 


bfl 

O) 


Yeak 


r ro 

; ffp-  9 3 
i ^ O •^5' 

Ls  2.  3 


ip 
P-3 
w p, 


w >> 

WS  $ SWS 

I?-  5’ 

^ p (JQ  tr  3 
0 3 O 

HJ 

IJtd  S 

S’  CD  ^ ' 3 

» D M : c rt 

F p,  i • po 


;.P3 


W < 

® tr'o' 


era 


3 

gCR  ^ 

: ^ 

i 2 : 

: CD  : 

• c/i  : 

i o : 

: i-j  ; 

S 1854...  1,116 

541 

179 

1 

3 

137 

17 

10 

41 

94 

_ 1855...  1,248 

600 

204 

1 

7 

128 

14 

10 

36 

116 

o 1856...  1,387 

478 

318 

3 

n 

256 

9 

13 

25 

28 

^ 1857...  1,897 

664 

451 

2 

11 

301 

29 

14 

73 

13 

S 1858...  1,787 

617 

471 

0 

19 

372 

35 

14 

35 

14 

“•  1859...  1,793 

738 

419 

1 

14 

332 

43 

8 

34 

8 

u I860...  1,825 

763 

391 

27 

346 

45 

5 

62 

18 

g 1861...  2,0U9 

672 

457 

9 

331 

1 

6 

71 

15 

. 1862...  1.518 

493 

325 

7 

190 

5 

10 

35 

1 

cS  1863...  1,,5C8 

515 

243 

13 

282 

12 

8 

26 

.2S  1864...  1,193 

331 

202 

6 

166 

13 

3 

42 

1 

rt  fl  186b...  1,1)88 

379 

245 

16 

17 

386 

52 

5 

50 

1 

•n,""  1866...  1,827 

537 

273 

8 

50 

440 

67 

12 

64 

4 

“ 1867...  1,693 

4>4 

275  • 

-16 

-49 

325. 

—63 

—6 

-96 

— 1 

^ 1868...  1,821 

675 

280 

15 

31 

375 

75 

14 

71 

2 

1869...  2,246 

1,992  842 

428 

28 

35 

382 

62 

9 

101 

7 

1870...  2,593 

2,370  1,050 

202 

52 

40 

408 

97 

6 

66 

3 

1871...  2,805 

2,658  1,290 

839 

31 

61 

387 

110 

6 

78 

5 

1872..  2,986 

2,718  1,470 

447  ■ 

-38 

—31 

315 

164 

—8- 

-60- 

-27 

f 1873...  4,481 

4,086  2,125 

594 

63 

29 

582 

170 

13 

103 

14 

SMS'  1874...  4,448 

3,712  2,044 

661 

73 

45 

564 

214 

19 

117 

19 

3 5 Is75...  4,425 

4,294  2,175 

734 

52 

88 

498 

235 

- 9 

132 

24 

0-1 2 1876+.,  3,103 

2,894  1,347 

391 

34 

80 

284 

149 

19 

85 

+10 

2 0+''  1877...  4,149  *2,928  1.734 

571 

49 

28 

428 

193 

24 

158 

17 

1878...  4,577 

4,453  2,141 

572 

60 

43 

.518 

279 

12 

172 

14 

-"'h’S  3,834 

3,701  1 628 

496 

143 

41 

373 

221 

in 

125 

134 

Set®  1880...  4,142 

*3,934  1,827 

534 

46 

24 

423 

160 

12 

136 

33 

3 1881...  4 332  *4,089  2,226 

517 

100 

48 

252 

140 

8 

124 

25 

■ --S'  1882...  4,825  *4,656  2.612 

606 

87 

41 

375 

202 

17 

107 

19 

W’--  1883...  5,394 

4,797  2,747 

937 

93 

31 

433 

266 

10 

1,59 

13 

•a  S 1884...  5,806 

6,678  2,879 

961 

100 

53 

460 

368 

9 

151 

23 

iz; 

o 

HH 

H 

I— I 

M 

I— I 

K 

O 


<i 


tq 


hJ 

w 

cn 

'Z, 

W 

CJ 


+1876,  eight  months,  April  1 to  December  1. 
iTrainp  Law  went  into  effect. 

•Retui'ns  incomplete  on  this  head. 


222 


APPENDIX. 


NOTE  E. 

GOVERNOR  MARTIN’S  LETTEB. 

On  the  12th  of  July,  1887,  Governor  Martin,  of  Kansas,  sent  to  the  As- 
sociated Press  the  following  letter: 

William  Henry  Smith,  General  Manager  Associated  Press:  3Iy 
Dear  Sir— On  the  2d  of  July  instant  a special  dispatch  was  sent  from 
St.  Joseph,  Mo.,  to  a Chicago  paper,  in  which  it  wns  stated  that  “ the 
closing  of  the  saloons  in  Atchison,  Kan.,  has  cut  off  the  most  profit- 
able source  of  revenue,  amounting  to  thousands-of  dollars  a year,  and, 
as  a result,  the  city  has  not  revenue  to  keep  going;  that  the  police 
force,  with  the  exception  of  the  Marshal  and  one  policeman,  had  been 
suspended : that  the  services  of  the  firemen  were  to  be  dispensed  with, 
and  that  the  gas  and  electric  lights  were  to  be  shut  off.” 

This  dispatch  was  utilized  by  the  Associated  Press,  and  thus  pub- 
lished in  all  parts  of  tlie  country.  As  a result,  I have  received  many 
letters  from  different  sections  making  inquiry  as  to  the  truth  of  state- 
ments it  embodied,  and  have  seen  its  alleged  facts  commented  on  in 
dozens  of  newspapers,  as  evidence  that  the  abolition  of  saloons  has 
reduced  a prosperous  city  in  Kansas  to  the  verge  of  bankruptcy.  Sim- 
ilar letters  have  been  received  by  the  Mayor  of  Atchison,  and  by  many 
other  cities  of  Kansas. 

The  dispatch  referred  to  was  prompted  by  two  motives.  It  was  first 
sent  from  a town  in  Missouri  for  the  purpose  of  injuring  a rival  city 
in  Kansas ; and  second,  it  was  inspired  by  the  whisky  interest,  and  in- 
tended to  create  the  impression  that  an  efficient  city  government 
could  not  be  maintained  without  the  revenue  derived  from  liquor  li- 
censes. The  city  of  Atchison  has  been  for  many  years  one  of  the  most 
important  railroad  and  commercial  centres  of  Kansas.  It  has  a popu- 
lation of  about  23,000  people.  If  the  whisky  interest  could  create  the 
impression  that  Achison  liad  been  materially  injured  because  the  sa- 
loons had  been  driven  out  of  it,  a serious  blow  would  be  dealt  the  tem- 
perance cause.  The  Associated  Press,  in  giving  this  false  special  such 
wide  publicity,  was  made  the  unconscious  agent  of  a malicious  slan- 
derer, whose  purposes  were  as  unworthy  as  his  statements  unfounded. 
I deem  it  my  duty  to  correct  the  false  impressions  thus  created,  and 
respectfully  ask  tliat  this  letter  be  given  as  wide  a publication  as  the 
dispatch  which  prompts  it. 

I am  thoroughly  famihar  with  the  condition  of  the  city  of  Atchison, 
and  personally  know  that  the  statements  embodied  in  the  St.  Joseph 
dispatch  are  false  and  misleading.  The  gas,  electric  lights,  and  water 
supply  of  the  city  have  never  been  turned  off.  Its  fire  department  has 
been  and  is  continuously  on  duty.  Its  police  force  has  been  largely 
reduced,  but  has,  in  the  absence  of  the  saloons,  been  ample  to  preserve 
the  peace  and  protect  the  property  of  its  citizens.  A local  dispute  con- 
cerning metltods  of  taxation  and  involving  the  adoption  of  a tax  which 
has  been  cniiected  in  the  city  of  St.  Joseph  for  many  years  past,  is  the 


APPENDIX. 


m 


only  foundation  for  the  malicious  and  untruthful  dispatch  from  that 
place. 

Atchison  abolished  tlie  last  of  its  saloons  in  the  fall  of  1886.  The 
whisky  interests  prophesied  that  this  action  would  seiiously  injure 
the  business  of  the  city.  It  has  had  no  such  effect.  Atchison  is  more 
prosperous  to-day  than  it  has  been  for  many  years  past.  Its  wholesale 
trade  aggregated  over  $40,000,000  in  1886,  and  during  the  first  six 
months  of  1887  this  trade  increased  fully  33  per  cent,  over  that  for  the 
corresponding  six  months  of  1886.  All  the  principal  streets  of  the  city 
are  now  being  paved. 

More  substantial  improvements  are  being  made  and  more  buildings 
are  being  erected  in  Atchison  this  year  than  during  any  previous  year 
in  its  history.  Ten  important  lines  of  railway  centre  in  the  city,  and 
the  Southern  Kansas  Railway  has  just  extended  its  line  to  Atchison. 
The  central  shops  of  the  Missouri  Pacific  road  have  recently  been  lo- 
cated there;  the  largest  lumber  yard  in  the  West  has  recently  been 
established  there,  and  many  other  important  commercial  and  manufac- 
turing industries  have  been  located  there  during  the  past  six  months. 
Better  than  all,  too,  hundreds  of  thousands  of  dollars  that  were  form- 
erly wasted  in  the  saloons  are  now  expended  in  feeding  and  clothing 
and  housing  tlie  people,  and  as  a result  housands  of  wives  and  chil- 
dren in  Atchison  who  were  living  in  poverty  a few  years  ago  are  now 
prosperous,  happy  and  contented. 

This  St.  Soseph  dispatch  is  only  fair  specimen  of  hundreds  of  false 
and  malicious  statements  I have  seen  published  in  the  newspapers  of 
the  country  during  the  past  three  or  four  years  concerning  Kansas 
and  Kansas  towns.  The  whisky  interests  predictec  that  the  abolition 
of  saloons  in  Kansas  would  injuriously  affect  the  material  prosperity 
of  the  State,  and  falsehoods,  intended  to  confirm  this  view,  are  con- 
stantly invented  and  circulated  in  every  section  of  the  country,  and 
especially  in-States  where  movements  are  being  made  to  banish  the 
saloons.  I am  receiving  letters  daily  from  different  States,  making 
inquiries  concerning  the  effects  and  results  of  our  temperance  laws  on 
the  financial,  commercial  and  other  material  interests  of  our  State, 
and  these  letters  all  indicate  that  the  work  of  maligning  Kansas  is  go- 
ing on  in  every  section  of  the  country.  Permit  me,  therefore,  to  give 
you  the  real  facts. 

The  Prohibition  Amendment  to  our  Constitution  was  adopted  in  the 
autumn  of  1880,  and  the  first  laws  to  enforce  it  went  into  effect  in  May, 
1881.  The  war  to  banish  the  saloons  was  for  some  years  only  partially 
successful.  The  Amendment  had  been  adopted  by  a very  meagre 
majority,  and  the  public  sentiment  in  all  our  larger  cities  was  over- 
whelmingly against  it.  As  late  as  January,  1885,  saloons  were  open  in 
fully  thirty  of  the  larger  cities  of  Kansas,  including  Topeka,  tlie  cap" 
ital  of  the  State. 

But  steadily  aiidsurelythe  public  sentiment  against  them  spread  and 
intensified.  The  small  nia  jority  that  had  voted  for  the  Amendment 
was  reinforced  first  by  fh.osc  law  respecting  citizens  who  are  always 


224 


APPENDIX, 


willing  to  subordinate  their  personal  opinions  to  the  majesty  of  law,  and 
second,  by  an  equally  large  number,  who,  observing  the  practical  re- 
sults following  the  abolition  of  saioons  in  different  cities  and  towns, 
became  convinced  that  Kansas  would  be  a more  prosperous,  happy, 
and  in  ail  respects  a better  community  of  peopie  if  it  had  not  an  open 
saloon  within  its  borders.  So  the  sentiment  of  Kansas  against  the 
liquor  traffic  has  grown  and  strengthened  until  to-day  I very  much 
doubt  whether,  of  its  300,000  male  voters,  more  than  75,000  would,  if 
they  could,  invite  back  and  reinstate  the  saloon. 

One  argument  of  the  whisky  interest,  viz.,  that  saloons  promote  the 
prosperity  and  growth  of  communities,  lias  been  answered  in  Kansas 
by  the  convincing  logic  of  facts.  In  1880  the  population  of  this  State, 
as  shown  by  tlie  census,  was  996,096;  in  March,  1886,  as  shown  by  the 
State  census,  it  was  1,406,738.  and  it  is  now  fully  1,650,000.  In  1880  Kan- 
sas had  only  3,104  miles  of  railroads  within  her  borders : on  the  1st  of 
March  last  the  State  Board  of  Railroad  Assessors  reported  6,208  miles 
for  taxation,  and  from  600  to  800  miles  will  be  added  to  this  aggregate 
before  the  close  of  the  year.  In  1880  the  assessed  value  of  all  real  and 
personal  property  of  the  State  aggregated  only  5160,891,689;  on  the  1st 
of  March.  1886,  the  total  was,  $277,575,363;  and  for  the  present  fiscal 
year  the  returns  thus  far  received  indicate  a total  of  $300,000,000.  In 
1880  there  were  5,315  schoolhouses,  2,914  churches  and  347  newspapers 
in  Kansas;  there  are  now  fully  8,500 schoolhouses, 3,500  churches  and 
700  newspapers.  In  1880  only  55  towns  and  cities  had 
populations  in  excess  of  1,000  each;  in  1887  more  than  200  towns 
have  each  over  1000  inhabitants;  fully  25  have  each  over  5,000,  and  4 have 
each  over  20,000.  In  1880  only  8,868,000  acres  were  planted  in  crops ; 
this  year  the  area  planted  exceeds  16,000,000  acres.  In  1880  the  values 
of  the  farm  products  of  Kansas  was  only  $84,521,000 ; for  1886  their  value 
was  over  $264,000,000.  For  the  fiscal  year  1880  the  percentage  of  State 
taxation  was  5 1-2  mills;  lor  the  present  fiscal  year  the  total  percent- 
age levied  for  all  State  purposes  is  only  4 1-2  mills. 

During  tlie  past  two  years  and  a half  I have  organized  seventeen 
counties  in  the  western  section  of  the  State,  and  censas-takers  have 
been  appointed  for  four  other  counties,  leaving  only  two  counties  re- 
maining to  be  organized.  The  cities  and  towns  of  Kansas,  with  hardly 
an  exception,  have  kept  pace  in  growth  and  prosperity  with  this  mar- 
vellous development  of  the  State.  Many  of  them  have  doubled  their 
population  during  the  past  year.  And  it  is  a remarkable  fact  that  sev- 
eral cities  and  towns  languished  or  stood  still  until  they  abolislied 
their  saloons,  and  from  that  date  to  the  present  time  their  growth  and 
prosperity  has  equalled,  and  in  some  instances  surpassed,  tliat  of 
other  places  with  equal  natural  advantages. 

Summing  up,  the  facts  of  the  census  confute  and  confound  those  who 
assert  that  the  material  prosperity  of  any  community  is  promoted  by 
the  presence  of  saloons.  So  f.ar  as  Kansas  and  all  her  cities  and  towns 
are  concerned,  the  reverse  of  this  assertion  is  true.  The  most  wonder- 
ful era  of  prosperity,  of  material,  moral  and  intellectual  development, 


APPENDIX. 


225 


or  growth  in  country,  cities  and  towns,  ever  witnessed  on  the  Ameri- 
san  Continent  has  been  illustrated  in  Kansas  during  the  six  years 
since  the  temperance  amendment  to  our  Constitution  was  adopted, 
and  especially  during  the  past  two  years,  the  period  of  its  most  ener- 
getic and  complete  enforcement. 

Yours  very  respectfully,  John  A.  Martin. 

NOTE  P. 

The  “ Bowman  decision  ” of  the  United  States  Supreme  Court  was 
rendered  March  19,  1888.  Briefly  stated,  the  facts  in  the  case  were  as 
follows.  George  X.  Bowman  and  Fred.  W.  Bowman  were  brewers  do- 
ing business  in  Marshalltown,  Iowa.  May  20, 1886,  they  offered  5000 
barrels  of  beer  to  the  Chicago  & Northwestern  Kailway  Co.,  lor  trans- 
portation from  Chicago  to  Marshalltown.  The  railway  refused  to  trans- 
port the  beer  because  of  a clause  in  the  Iowa  law  forbidding  all  lines 
of  transportation  to  bring  beer  into  the  State  unless  a permit  has  been 
given  by  the  auditor  of  the  county  to  which  the  beer  was  destined. 
The  Bowman  Bros,  brought  suit  for  damages  against  the  railway. 
The  United  States  Circuit  Court  lor  the  Northern  District  of  Illinois 
decided  in  favor  of  the  defendant.  The  case  was  appealed  to  the 
United  States  Supreme  Court,  which  reversed  the  decision  of  the 
Circuit  Court  and  found  for  the  plaintiffs  on  the  ground  that  this  sec- 
tion of  thelowa  law  was  unconstitutional.  Following  is  the  decision  in 
part: 

“It  is  conceded,  as  we  have  already  shown,  that  for  the  purposes  of 
its  policy  a State  has  legislative  control,  exclusive  of  Congress,  within 
its  territory  of  all  persons,  things  and  transactions  of  strictly  internal 
concern.  For  the  purpose  of  protecting  its  people  against  the  evils  of 
intemperance  it  has  the  right  to  prohibit  the  manufacture  within  its 
limits  of  intoxicating  liquors ; it  may  also  prohibit  all  domestic  com- 
merce in  them  between  its  own  inhabitants,  whether  the  articles  are 
introduced  from  other  States  or  from  foreign  countries ; it  may  punish 
those  who  sell  them  in  violation  of  its  laws ; it  may  adopt  any  meas- 
ures tending,  even  indirectly  and  remotely,  to  make  the  policy  effec. 
live  until  it  passes  the  line  of  power  delegated  to  Congress  under  the 
Constitution.  It  cannot,  without  the  consent  of  Congress,  expressed 
ar  implied,  regulate  commerce  between  its  people  and  those  of  the 
ather  States  of  the  Union  in  order  to  effect  its  end,  however  desirable 
mch  a regulation  might  be. 

“ The  statute  of  Iowa  under  consideration  falls  within  this  prohibi- 
Jion.  It  is  not  an  inspection  law;  it  is  not  a quarantine  or  sanitary 
(aw.  It  is  essentially  a regulation  of  commerce  among  the  States 
within  any  definition  heretofore  given  to  that  term,  or  which  can  be 
given ; and  although  its  motive  and  purpose  are  to  perfect  the  policy 
«f  the  State  of  Iowa  in  protecting  its  citizens  against  the  evils  of 

25 


226 


APPENDIX. 


intemperance,  it  is  none  the  less  on  that  account  a regulation  of  com- 
merce. If  it  had  extended  its  provisions  so  as  to  prohibit  the  introduc- 
tion into  the  State  from  foreign  countries  of  all  importations  of  intoxi- 
cating liquors  produced  abroad,  no  one  would  doubt  the  nature  of  the 
provision  as  a regulation  of  foreign  commerce.  Its  nature  is  not 
olianged  by  its  application  to  commerce  among  tlie  States. 

“ Can  it  be  supposed  that  by  omitting  any,  express  declarations  on 
the  subject  Congress  has  intended  to  submit  to  the  several  States  the 
decision  of  the  question  in  each  locality  of  what  shall  and  wliat  shall 
not  be  articles  of  traffic  in  the  inter-State  commerce  of  the  country? 
If  so  it  has  left  to  each  State,  according  to  its  own  caprice  and  arbi- 
trary will  to  discriminate  foror  against  every  article  grown,  produced, 
manufactured  or  sold  in  any  State  and  sought  to  be  introduced  as  ah 
article  of  commerce  into  any  other.  If  the  State  of  Iowa  may  prohibit 
the  importation  of  intoxicating  liquors  from  all  other  States  it  may 
also  Include  tobacco,  or  any  other  article,  the  use  or  abuse  of  which  it 
may  deem  deleterious.  It  may  not  choose  even  to  be  governed  by  con- 
siderations growing  out  of  the  health,  comfort,  or  peace  of  the  commu- 
nity. Its  policy  may  be  directed  to  other  ends.  It  may  choose  to 
establish  a system  directed  to  the  promotion  and  benefit  of  its  own 
agriculture,  manufactures  or  arts  of  any  description,  and  prevent  the 
introduction  and  sale  within  its  limits  of  any  or  of  all  articles  that  It 
may  select  as  coming  into  competition  with  those  which  it  seeks  to 
protect.  The  police  power  of  the  State  would  extend  to  such  cases,  as 
well  as  to  those  in  which  it  was  sought  to  legisiate  in  behalf  of  the 
health,  peace,  and  morals  of  the  people.  lu  view  of  the  commercial 
anarchy  and  confusion  that  would  result  from  the  diverse  exertions  of 
power  by  the  several  States  of  the  L'nion.  it  cannot  be  supposed  that 
the  Constitution  or  Congress  have  intended  to  limit  the  freedom  of 
commercial  intercourse  among  the  people  of  the  several  States.  * * * » 

“ It  may  be  said,  however,  that  the  right  of  the  State  to  restrict  or 
prohibit  sales  of  intoxicating  liquor  within  itslimits.  conceded  to  exist 
as  a part  of  its  police  power,  implies  the  right  to  prohibit  its  importa- 
tion, because  the  latter  is  necessary  to  the  effectual  exercise  of  the 
former.  The  argument  is  that  a prohibition  of  the  sale  cannot  be  made 
effective,  except  by  preventing  the  introduction  of  the  subject  of  the 
sale;  that  if  its  entrance  into  the  State  is  permitted,  the  traffic  in  it  can- 
not be  suppressed.  But  the  right  to  prohibit  sales,  so  far  as  concetied 
to  the  States,  arises  only  after  the  act  of  transportation  has  terminated, 
because  the  sales  which  the  State  may  forbid  are  of  things  within  its 
jurisdiction.  Its  power  over  them  does  not  begin  to  operate  until 
they  are  brought  within  the  territorial  limits  which  circumscribe  it.  It 
might  be  very  convenient  and  useful  in  the  execution  of  the  policy  of 
Prohibition  within  the  State  to  extend  the  powers  of  the  State  beyond 
its  territorial  limits.  But  such  extra-territorial  powers  cannot  be  as- 
sumed upon  such  an  implication.  On  the  contrary,  the  natur®  of  the 


APPENDIX, 


227 


ease  contradicts  their  existence.  For  if  they  belong  toone  State,  they 
belong  to  all,  and  cannot  be  exercised  severally  and  independently. 
The  attempt  would  necessarily  produce  that  conflict  and  confusion 
which  it  was  the  very  purpose  of  the  Constitution  by  its  delegations  of 
national  power  to  prevent. 

“It  is  easier  to  think  that  the  right  of  importation  from  abroad  and 
of  transportation  from  one  State  to  another  includes,  by  necessary  im- 
plication, the  right  of  the  importer  to  sell  in  unbroken  packages  at  the 
place  where  the  transit  terminates  for  the  very  purpose  and  motive  of 
that  branch  of  commerce  which  consists  in  transportation,  is  that 
other  and  consequent  act  of  commerce  which  consists  in  the  sale  and 
exchange  of  the  commodities  transported.  Such  indeed  was  the  point 
decided  in  the  case  of  Brown  v.  Maryland,  12  Wheat.  419,  as  to 
foreign  commerce,  with  the  express  statement,  in  the  opinion  of  Chief- 
Justice  Marshall,  that  the  conclusion  would  be  the  same  in  a case  of 
commerce  among  the  States.  But  it  is  not  necessary  now  to  express 
any  opinion  upon  the  point,  because  thatquestion  does  not  arise  in  the 
present  case.  The  precise  line  which  divides  the  transaction,  so  far 
as  it  belongs  to  foreign  or  inter-State  commerce,  from  the  internal  and 
domestic  commerce  of  the  State,  we  are  not  now  called  upon  to 
delineate.  It  is  enough  to  say,  that  the  power  to  regulate  or  forbid  the 
sale  of  a commodity,  after  it  has  been  brought  into  the  State,  does  not 
carry  with  it  the  right  and  power  to  prevent  its  introduction  by  trans- 
portation from  another  State.” 

Three  Justices,  Waite,  Harlan,  and  Gray,  filed  a dissenting  opinion. 


W5S2 


34314 


